God's Rejection of Ishmael

[Ronnee743]

[

QUOTE=Kathaleen]Ronnee, you have some serious hate issues happening. You might want to refocus and act a little more Christ-like. It's not very becoming.

I hate Islam, but I do not hate Mulsims.

1)

Ishmael is Abraham’s first-born son.

2)


Ishmael is born under the Nuzu law. Not according to promise as Isaac was.
Ishmael was born because Sarah told Abrham to have sex with hagar, but Isaac was born because God wanted him.He was born because God said he would give Abraham a son by Sarah.

Hagar is Abraham’s lawfully wedded wife. 3)

Hagr was Sarah's handmaid, not Abraham's wife.She was dismissed as soon as Sarah didn't want her around.

The covenant seed will be as numerous as the stars. 4) The covenant seed will be given the land between the Nile and Euphrates Rivers.

This promise was given to the descendents of Isaac. God made the covenant with Isaac. You made your story up.God said it and you cannot change the Bible, as much as you try.

5)

Ishmael was Abraham’s only

son and seed for fourteen years.

6) So?

Circumcision is the symbol of God’s covenant. 7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins. None of the above have anything to do with Isaac.

But Isaac was circumcized on the eighth day according to what God said.

In Deuteronomy 21:15-17 we read: "If a man has two wives, one loved and the other unloved, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the unloved, and if the firstborn son is of her who is unloved, then it shall be, on the day of bequeaths his possessions to his sons


This law is set down by God over four hundred years after Abraham died.

[

QUOTE]

, that he must not bestow firstborn status on the son of the loved wife in preference to the son of the unl-born.
oved, the true firstborn.

But he shall acknowledge the son of the unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his." Therefore, it doesn't matter whether Abraham loved Ishmael, he is the first
According to the Bible, Ishmael is Abraham’s son through his

wife
Hagar. Now listen to what Abraham has to say about the mother of Isaac, Sarah: "Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not
in this place; and they kill me on account of my wife. But indeed she is truly my sister. She is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife" (Genesis 20:11-12). Once again we have a breach of the book of Deuteronomy: "Cursed is the one who lies with his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother.And all the people shall say, Amen!" (Deuteronomy 27:22). If Abraham lived during the time of Moses, He would have been stoned to death. So how can the son of Abraham’s sister be legitimate? He can’t!

Peace,
Kathaleen

[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]


The law had not been given. I give up with you people....you are very confused. I don't even care how this post looks... I give up trying to make you see.

 

[Clark_98C]

You shouldn't hate anything.

Regardless of whether it's tangible or not.

 

[Kathaleen]

If Abraham lived during the time of Moses, he would have been breaking God's Law. However, he did not. If you read the accounts of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, there were plenty of things they did which would later be outlawed. You should also understand these things within the context of God's sovereignty. Does the clay tell the potter what to do with it? Why did God call out Abram, of all the Semitic people? Also, by looking at the lives of those whom God chose--Abraham (instead of someone else), Isaac (instead of Ishmael), Jacob (over Esau), Joseph (over his older brothers), David (over his brothers and Saul), or Jesus' disciples (why those specific twelve?), we can get a clue as to what God foresaw in them--a willingness to trust Him and cling to Him.

Peace:

There are a few problems here with your justification.

First, you are saying that God made them Prophets after watching thier behavior or whatever when we know that is not the case.

Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

According the multiversion concordance and the Geneva Study Bible:

(g) The scripture uses this manner of speech to declare that God has appointed his minsters to their offices before they were born, as in Isa 49:1, Ga 1:15.

So, God already KNEW He was creating a Prophet BEFORE they were created.

Second, you are assuming that just because something wasn't revealed as unlawful in the Bible that it was then lawful. So if we look at Noah In Genesis 7:2-3: we see The Lord commanded Noah to take the animals into the ark, seven of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal. There was no law written that distinguished between the two...how did he know? And, obviously, he knew as he did what was commanded. Most Biblical and Christian Scholars believe it was passed through oral traditions from the time of Adam. This makes sense as it was the norm for the time. The same way Cain offers vegetables to God and he knew it was wrong as God told him he should have known better in Genesis 4:7. How?? Oral tradition from Adam. In Genesis 4:1-16, Cain murdered Abel. What was wrong with that? There was not yet a commandment forbidding it. Yet, Cain tries to hide the body because he knew it was wrong. How does he know? Oral tradition. And what is his punishment? He is marked. Marked for what purpose if no one knows murder is wrong. They DID know and he feared for his life knowing he could be killed as well.

Using your line of reasoning, murder was perfectly acceptable until the Law of Moses and I'm confident you don't believe that.

Peace,
Kathaleen

 

[Kathaleen]

As an added thought, it's quite probable that Ishmael was a believer in the One True God of Israel. That would make him one of our (OT and NT believers) many brothers in the Lord. His mom may have been a believer as well, though it's not so clear with her.

Peace:

Quite probable and may have been really don't hold much water here. These are opinions and thoughts, not scripture.

Peace,
Kathaleen

 

[Kathaleen]

True, but the promise through the union of Abraham's legitamate wife, Sarai. The promise was given in Gen 11 or 12 I think. At that point, Abram was married to Sarai, and this was before God told Abram to leave his home and go afar, if I recall correctly. Additonally, even before Ishmael was born, God refused the proposal Abram gave Him to allow one of his servants be heir. At that time, God reiterated to him that Sarai would bear a child although she had been barren all this time. Also, later in Genesis (perhaps19 or 20 chpt.), God made it clear that the heir would come from the bowels of Abram, which meant from him and Sarai.

The verse you are referring to is Genesis 15:2-5: 2 But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit [c] my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3 And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir." 4 Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be."

God is referring to Eliezer of Damascus NOT being his heir. And tells him his heir will come from his own body which Ishmael most certainly is! It had nothing to do with which wife gave birth.

Continuing from above: The reason that Abram and Hagar had sexual intimacy was for the sole purpose of creating an heir for Abram. As I understand, it was a custom of that time I (perhaps Hammurabi Code) to go outside of marriage to have a child if the wife could not bear a child. It was frowned upon for a woman not bear a child.

Would you please provide the verse that says this? I was unable to find it. Thanks.

To finish the thought: it was Sarai's invention to allow Abram to mate with Hagar. It was not Abram's idea. Sarai failed to believe God when He told her that she was going to be the mother of a child. It was a lack of faith on both sides, Abram and Sarai, that produced Ishmael. This is the reason that God rejected Ishmael, not because of his rank as the first born, but due to an unfruitful relationship which God did not endorse.

What??? Where did you get this from?? Ishmael was born LONG before when Abraham was 86 when Ishmael was born and 99 when when Issac was born. It had NOTHING to do with what you are saying.

God's way was through Abram and Sarai, but they had other plans for God. I guess they figured that they could help God out of a jam by substituting their fruitless efforts and not believe God for His promise to first, Abram and then Sarai. The marriage between Hagar and Abram was a cultural norm of that time, but was not a divine act prophecied or instituted by God. God made it more clear as time neared for Isaac to be born that the covenant was through Abram and Sarai's offspring, Isaac.

Help God out of a jam?? Are you kidding me??

Show me the verse that says that the marriage between Hagar and Abraham was not legitimate.

Two things you need to be clear on: 1) The covenant was as you said but 2) it did not include Ishmael. God granted leniency on Hagar and Ishmael after Abram's pleading before God to grant Ishamael a part of his inheritance. God declined but promised that through Ishmael a nation of princes would be born. This does not count as a covenant because it is an unconditional promise. A covenant is a conditional promise, whereby Abraham had to comply to the terms of circumcision and a few other things in order for this covenant of promise to be invoked.

With all due respect, you need to read these verses, you are saying things here that never happened. As far as the covenant with Issac, I will show the error in this a little later, but for now we're in information overload here.

I can not verify that at the moment, but what would this prove?

I will show you when I get to the portion mentioned above.

I have already addressed that issue. That had no bearing on what God promised Abram when he and Sarai were the only ones around when the promise was given.

As have I and this information is not correct, (see above)



OK. Let's extend this logic to say that since every male was circumcised in Abram's house, everyone were included in the Covenant although God made it with Abram; furthermore, the maidservants would also create great nations too! Circumcision was not always a sign of a covenant. God's covenant with Adam was not of circumcision, as one glaring example.There were other ways that covenants were made too.

We are not talking about Adam, we are talking about a particular covenant made with Abraham.

Are you sure? Read below.
KJV:
7) Ishmael was circumcised with his father on the same day to fulfill the covenant with the flesh of their foreskins. None of the above have anything to do with Isaac.

Yes, I am certain it was ONLY Ishmael circumsized on the SAME day as Abraham to fulfill the covenant. Issac wasn't born yet, so no, it had nothing to do with him at that time.
[/quote]

Peace,
Kathaleen

 

[Kathaleen]

...Continued



Unlike the Qur'an perhaps, you can not go hopping around the Bible without keeping everything in context and chronology.

Actually you can do exactly that with the Qur'an. Put the surahs in any order you choose...it changes absolutely nothing. It's one of the miracles of the Qur'an.

The Law given to Moses has nothing to do with Abram, just as Abram's circumcision had nothing to do with Noah. These people were born in different times and had not seen the progressive revelation that God showed to later generations. The nature of progressive revelation is just that - progressive. You can not use specific applications of Deut as a litmus test for a former generation far removed from its implementation.

Well, yes you can because as I mentioned above in the other post, the word of God was passed down through tradition. Right and wrong were known without seeing it in the bible at a particular time. Covenants are a different matter. We are not talking about a covenant.



Well, why don't get a time machine and go back to Noah's time and stone everyone who committed adultery. We can take a copy of the Mosaic and Levitical Laws and pass judgement upon them for all of their sinfulness. We can also tell Noah that he can eat pork, which God made acceptable to him and those after the flood. Lets make every law passed in by legislatures retroactive to let's say 50 years ago. Let's retroact the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 back to 1840 when there were no computers around and charge everyone for downloading music off of the Internet.. At what point should we stop this madness of yours?

It's not my madness that is trying to justify adultry or any other poor behaviors. Please show me where it was permitted. Show me a verse that says "prior to what is written, adultry is acceptable" "murder is acceptable". As already discussed, oral tradition taught right from wrong and those who came before Moses KNEW right from wrong.

As I just pointed out, we can not go out of God's timing and retrofit the present with the past.

Oh, God's word doesn't stand forever? That would explain why Christians don't follow biblical text. It only stands as long as it suits your purpose?

If you want to apply that logic, then you should be able to understand why it is possible for Jesus to fulfill the Law of Moses and Leviticus in the future whereby many of the Jews would look at this progression in revelation as a disconnect with what the had previously known. Mosaic Law was not given to every living creature either before or after the time of Moses. Abram was not a Jew and was not under the Law; so, those two things alone should suffice in my rebuttal to your argument.

And yet, it doesn't. Jesus, pbuh, didn't come to change the law and did not change the law. Paul did. No Prophet before Prophet Muhammed, pbuh, was sent to all mankind. They were all ONLY sent to a particular nation. So what you're saying is that none of the laws apply to Christians today. You don't believe in Muhammed, pbuh, which means you never received a Prophet for your particular nation. Interesting.

PS: I thought that I should make it clear that my sacrasm in this last post is not to be taken personally. I am attacking the thought process of the individual and not the individual. I felt it was necessary to drive home a point. Whether that point is taken is out of my control. No offense to anyone, especially Kathaleen.

No offense taken whatsoever. But even with the sarcasm, it didn't help the point.

Peace be with you,
Kathaleen

 

[peaceful soul]

Peace be with you,
Kathaleen

After skimming through your reply, I see no need to continue this. It is as clear as day if you read chapters 10 - 23 what was going on. You need to go and read those chapters and take notes before you can expect me to say anything else to you. This is a cut and dried topic if you care to read the chronology of events and see in very clear words that God's covenant was established with Abram and through the bloodline of Isaac. There is nothing else to debate. For some reasons, you and your fellow Muslims resist the reality that the covenant did not include Ishmael. I showed you the verses. There was no question of vagueness in what those verses stated. If you could agree with the text even if you do not believe the Bible, at least you could see what it says.

PS. In some of your replies, you respond as if you are disconnected from the meaning of what I am stating. I don't think that I am that unclear in my statements.

 

[Kathaleen]

After skimming through your reply, I see no need to continue this. It is as clear as day if you read chapters 10 - 23 what was going on. You need to go and read those chapters and take notes before you can expect me to say anything else to you. This is a cut and dried topic if you care to read the chronology of events and see in very clear words that God's covenant was established with Abram and through the bloodline of Isaac. There is nothing else to debate. For some reasons, you and your fellow Muslims resist the reality that the covenant did not include Ishmael. I showed you the verses. There was no question of vagueness in what those verses stated. If you could agree with the text even if you do not believe the Bible, at least you could see what it says.

PS. In some of your replies, you respond as if you are disconnected from the meaning of what I am stating. I don't think that I am that unclear in my statements.

Peace:

Actually, they are not as clear as you may think. There have been centuries of debates regarding this and many other verses. Please believe me when I tell you I am very familiar with these verses.

But, if you don't wish to continue, it's not a problem. Thank you for your willingness to dialgue.

Peace to you and yours,
Kathaleen

 

[peaceful soul]

Peace:

Actually, they are not as clear as you may think. There have been centuries of debates regarding this and many other verses. Please believe me when I tell you I am very familiar with these verses.

But, if you don't wish to continue, it's not a problem. Thank you for your willingness to dialgue.

Peace to you and yours,
Kathaleen

Being familiar with something does not tell me if you understand their context and meaning. The question is do you know the explicit meaning of those verses?

Everything is debatable, but that does not dismiss the fact that God's covenant was through the generations that came through Isaac.

Once again, here are the relevant verses. They are very clear as I stated earlier. Their is no way to misintepret it, unless you have another agenda.

Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
Gen 17:11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.
Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.
Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.
Gen 17:15 And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.
Gen 17:16 And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.
Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?
Gen 17:18 And Abraham said unto God, O that Ishmael might live before thee!
Gen 17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.
Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.
Gen 17:22 And he left off talking with him, and God went up from Abraham.

What about those verses don't you understand? I repeat, these verses are very clear. The whole story from chapter 10 - 23 is very clear. There is not a drop of ambiguity in the covenant!

 

[jlujan69]

Peace:

There are a few problems here with your justification.

First, you are saying that God made them Prophets after watching thier behavior or whatever when we know that is not the case.

Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

According the multiversion concordance and the Geneva Study Bible:

(g) The scripture uses this manner of speech to declare that God has appointed his minsters to their offices before they were born, as in Isa 49:1, Ga 1:15.

So, God already KNEW He was creating a Prophet BEFORE they were created.

No, I'm not actually saying that. What I am saying is that God foreknew these men and the choices they'd make--both good and evil, yet for His own purposes chose them to be His prophets. God never anoints someone because that person sins, rather that person is chosen in spite of his sin.

Second, you are assuming that just because something wasn't revealed as unlawful in the Bible that it was then lawful. So if we look at Noah In Genesis 7:2-3: we see The Lord commanded Noah to take the animals into the ark, seven of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal. There was no law written that distinguished between the two...how did he know? And, obviously, he knew as he did what was commanded. Most Biblical and Christian Scholars believe it was passed through oral traditions from the time of Adam. This makes sense as it was the norm for the time. The same way Cain offers vegetables to God and he knew it was wrong as God told him he should have known better in Genesis 4:7. How?? Oral tradition from Adam. In Genesis 4:1-16, Cain murdered Abel. What was wrong with that? There was not yet a commandment forbidding it. Yet, Cain tries to hide the body because he knew it was wrong. How does he know? Oral tradition. And what is his punishment? He is marked. Marked for what purpose if no one knows murder is wrong. They DID know and he feared for his life knowing he could be killed as well.

Using your line of reasoning, murder was perfectly acceptable until the Law of Moses and I'm confident you don't believe that.

Peace,

I realize that God's moral law preceded creation. What I'm saying is that the Bible shows how there were certain behaviours, which, while unlawful, were at least "tolerated" by God for a time until full revelation was given. Would God have preferred that Abram marry a non-relative? Perhaps. But, God has shown time and time again how He uses very sinful people for His purposes. If we assume, for the moment, Abraham sinned by marrying Sarah, that still wouldn't preclude God from bringing the promised seed from their offspring.

 

[jlujan69]

Peace:

Quite probable and may have been really don't hold much water here. These are opinions and thoughts, not scripture.

Peace,
Kathaleen

I'll stop offering opinions when you do.

 

[jlujan69]

Peace:

Quite probable and may have been really don't hold much water here. These are opinions and thoughts, not scripture.

Peace,
Kathaleen

I could say that both died as heathen, if you prefer. I have to wonder why the notion of Ishmael being a believer is so offensive to you. Does your religion teach that all of God's prophets die and go to Hell?

 

[jlujan69]

Can this be edited? I'll find out in a couple of moments.....Yes, it can be. Mods, feel free to delete this particular post since it's not relevant to the thread.

 

[Futuwwa]

Ronnee,

What's the purpose of your original post, really? To assume that the Bible is correct in its account, and from that postulate prove that Islam is false? Your reasoning doesn't really convince anyone else than yourself.

It's not like anyone here doesn't know that the Bible and the Quran are incompatible with each other.

 

[jlujan69]

Ronnee,

What's the purpose of your original post, really? To assume that the Bible is correct in its account, and from that postulate prove that Islam is false? Your reasoning doesn't really convince anyone else than yourself.

It's not like anyone here doesn't know that the Bible and the Quran are incompatible with each other.

Yet, that would not seem to be the case with some Muslims here who have quoted the Bible to try to "prove" that it foretold Muhammed and actually denied Christ's divinity. It would appear as if those individuals somehow saw their scripture as complementing the Bible. I commend you for pointing out what should be obvious to any Muslim or Christian.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yet, that would not seem to be the case with some Muslims here who have quoted the Bible to try to "prove" that it foretold Muhammed and actually denied Christ's divinity. It would appear as if those individuals somehow saw their scripture as complementing the Bible. I commend you for pointing out what should be obvious to any Muslim or Christian.

Not to mention taking the Glory away from the promises to Israel and Judah.

Ezekiel 37:22 and I will make them One Nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and One King shall be king to them ALL; and they shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all;

 

[Ronnee743]

Arthra
Baha'i

08:17 PM

Reputation: 2,551
Health: 90%
Blessings: 2,352
Posts: 2,246
Referrals: 2

God does not reject Ishmael:

John 10.35 says the scriptures cannot be broken.
When Abraham asked the Lord if Ishmael could live before him, God said no.
Go read it.
You may wrest it all you want, but it remains the same.

 

[Ronnee743]

Ronnee,

What's the purpose of your original post, really? To assume that the Bible is correct in its account, and from that postulate prove that Islam is false? Your reasoning doesn't really convince anyone else than yourself.

It's not like anyone here doesn't know that the Bible and the Quran are incompatible with each other.

Perhaps some did not know this.
I am called a hatemongerer for defending the faith.
I see it as witnessing.
What about all that islam stuff posted ,which could be called hatemongering

 

[Ronnee743]

Peace:

There are a few problems here with your justification.

First, you are saying that God made them Prophets after watching thier behavior or whatever when we know that is not the case.

Jeremiah 1:5: "Before I formed you in the belly, I knew you. Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you. I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

According the multiversion concordance and the Geneva Study Bible:

(g) The scripture uses this manner of speech to declare that God has appointed his minsters to their offices before they were born, as in Isa 49:1, Ga 1:15.

So, God already KNEW He was creating a Prophet BEFORE they were created.

Second, you are assuming that just because something wasn't revealed as unlawful in the Bible that it was then lawful. So if we look at Noah In Genesis 7:2-3: we see The Lord commanded Noah to take the animals into the ark, seven of each clean animal and two of each unclean animal. There was no law written that distinguished between the two...how did he know? And, obviously, he knew as he did what was commanded. Most Biblical and Christian Scholars believe it was passed through oral traditions from the time of Adam. This makes sense as it was the norm for the time. The same way Cain offers vegetables to God and he knew it was wrong as God told him he should have known better in Genesis 4:7. How?? Oral tradition from Adam. In Genesis 4:1-16, Cain murdered Abel. What was wrong with that? There was not yet a commandment forbidding it. Yet, Cain tries to hide the body because he knew it was wrong. How does he know? Oral tradition. And what is his punishment? He is marked. Marked for what purpose if no one knows murder is wrong. They DID know and he feared for his life knowing he could be killed as well.

Using your line of reasoning, murder was perfectly acceptable until the Law of Moses and I'm confident you don't believe that.

Peace,
Kathaleen

I don't have time right now, but I want to come back and refute this.
I need to read it carefully and right now I am doing something else.