-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Isaac or Ishmael?
- Thread starter Kris_J
- Start date
- Status
I don't think it says one way or the other, butt since he is Abraham's son and Abraham was a righteous man it would be a logical assumption that he was if not for this verse, Genesis 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone's hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers." The angel is talking to Hagar and he said that Ishmael will be a wild donkey of a man in the NIV.Muslim said:
The basic difference in Christianity, Islam and Judaism is neither Islam or Judaism think the law has been fulfilled. When you start with a false assumption you cancome up with all kinds of false conclusions. Muslims can't live up to the law so they change it. Somebody said you all don't believe in any kind of blood sacrifice, you were supposed to sucrose an animal once a year at Passover. You don't believe in water baptism, that's the law you changed God's law. You do that with the rest of the bible too. When you see something you don't like you say the bible has been corrupted and put what you think Mohammed said in there. We're not trying to exclude you from anything, at least I'm not but the bible says what it mean's and means what it says. And it says God established the covenant through Isaac. The first part of the covenant has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ. We have a new covenant that is really a continuation of the same one. I have heard it said that The new testament is the old testament revealed, the old testament is the new testament concealed same testament or covenant. The way to God's promise is through the acceptance of Jesus as your savior and his death and resurrection. In Romans 10:9 Paul tells us we have to believe that God raised Jesus from the dead but first you have to believe that He died.
In Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. Do you think you're bringing forth the fruits thereof? I think you're misinterpreting what He's saying. 44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.
I think the stone is Himself. Whoever accepts him as their savior will be broken but if you don't He will crush you. Sounds like Philipiaanss 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; Maybe Paul didn't lie.
Upvote
0
Bevlina said:
Holy Quran
Chapter 37, Verses 99. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a boy ready to suffer and forbear.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!"
103. So when they had both submitted their wills (to Allah., and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham!
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was obviously a trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left (this blessing) for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to their own souls.
It is obvious from these verses that according to the Quran, Isaac was born after Abraham sacrificed his only son, Ishmael.
According to the Old Testament:-
"And he said: Take now thy son, thine ONLY SON Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of. " Genesis 22:2
But Isaac was not Abraham's only son then. His only son was Ishmael before Isaac was born. He certainly loved him because he was his first born. According to OT God promises Abraham that He would bless his descendants before the sacrifice.
Jews and Christians argue that because Ishmael was born of a concubine he was not a real son. But this is contradicted in the OT.
"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." Genesis 17:10
"And Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin." Genesis 17:25
We see that Circumcision was a mark of the covenant and Ishmael was circumcised.
There is no indication anywhere in the OT that Isaac knew that he was going to be sacrificed and that he consented to this.
The OT admits that Ishmael was also given a promise by God.
"And Abraham said unto God: O that Ishmael might live before thee! .And as for Ishmael, I have heard you. Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall beget twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation." Genesis 17:18,20
According to the OT, when Isaac was born, his mother Sarah persuaded Abraham to banish Hagar and Ishmael and they wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba (Gen. 21:14-16) where they suffered and the child was near death and Hagar wept.
"And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her: What ailest thee Hagar? Fear not: For God has heard the voice of the lad where he is. Arise, lift up the lad and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation." Genesis 21:17
If Ishmael was 13 years old could Hagar have done this?
It is rather suspicious that Ishmaelites should cease to be mentioned in the OT, except briefly when rescuing and selling Joseph to the Egyptians, considering the fact that the covenant was made with Abraham and this covenant included the inheritance of the lands of the Euphrates and Tigris, and Egypt.
"In the same day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying: Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt untothe great river, the river Euprates: the Kenites and the Kenizzites and the Kadmonites and the Hittites and the Perizzites and the Repphaims and the Aminites and the Canaanites and the Girgashites and the Jebusites." Genesis 15:18-21
The Hebrew Law, according to Deuteronomy 21:15-17 is that the eldest son has priority in inheritance - "he is the beginning of his strength; the right of firstborn is his." This rule goes back to the very beginning:-
"Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the Lord respected Abel and his offering." Genesis 4:4
"For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which genders to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answers to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Galatians 4:22-26
This can be reinterpreted according to the prediction of Jesus:-
"And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Matthew 3:9
"And I say unto you, that many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven. But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." Matthew 8:11-12
"Jesus said unto them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Therefore say I unto you: The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." Matthew 21:42-43
The nation which is being referred to is that of Ishmael's decendents, the Muslims. So we see that the "descents of Abraham" is not to be interpreted physically, but spiritually.If Isaac represents the Israelites and Ishmael represents the rest of Abraham's spiritual descendants, then though the Israelites carried the responsibility and blessings of the covenant at first, it passed to the spiritual descendants of Abraham through Ishmael where religion was universalised because the prophet Muhammad was sent to all of mankind.
Upvote
0
If you look in the king James the word son after only is in italics, that means it was added as an interpretation. It was based on the previous word translated only. In the NAS concordance the word for only is 3173. yachiyd, yaw-kheed'; from H3161; prop. united, i.e. sole; by impl. beloved; also lonely: (fem.) the life (as not to be replaced):--darling, desolate, only (child, son), solitary. It does mean only but it implies beloved and I think that's the word they should have used. It should read take they son, thigh believed son Isaac because obviously he had another one and I don't think whom thou lovest should even be in there.
I wouldn't call it corruption but there are some words in the KJV that I don't find a word for in the concordance. I know that some words are translated into phrases but there's some in there that I don't find a word that even means close to what that word or phrase says. Some KJV fans might disagree and say the concordance is wrong or something like that but I can't find a word that means the same or similar as what I read in the bible I'm going to think it probably shouldn't be in the book. How it's written that verse doesn't make sense, Isaac was either Abraham's beloved son or his only beloved son but he wasn't Abraham's only son. It's like God doesn't know how many sons Abraham has. To Christians it doesn't make that much difference but to Muslims and others who apparently just want to pick the bible apart so they can "prove" that the Koran is true or say what they want to say it makes a difference. If our book is corrupt though at least it started out clean.
I wouldn't call it corruption but there are some words in the KJV that I don't find a word for in the concordance. I know that some words are translated into phrases but there's some in there that I don't find a word that even means close to what that word or phrase says. Some KJV fans might disagree and say the concordance is wrong or something like that but I can't find a word that means the same or similar as what I read in the bible I'm going to think it probably shouldn't be in the book. How it's written that verse doesn't make sense, Isaac was either Abraham's beloved son or his only beloved son but he wasn't Abraham's only son. It's like God doesn't know how many sons Abraham has. To Christians it doesn't make that much difference but to Muslims and others who apparently just want to pick the bible apart so they can "prove" that the Koran is true or say what they want to say it makes a difference. If our book is corrupt though at least it started out clean.
Upvote
0
If Hagar was Keturah she was Abraham's concubine, which was considered a wife of lower rank but at least she wasn't an adulteress Concubine
(From Easton's Bible Dictionary) in the Bible denotes a female conjugally united to a man, but in a relation inferior to that of a wife. Among the early Jews, from various causes, the difference between a wife and a concubine was less marked than it would be amongst us. The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Exodus 21:7; Deuteronomy 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Genesis 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household governmen.
1 Chronicles 32:32 The sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan were Sheba and Dedan. Keturah was Abraham's concubine which didn't mean she was an adulteress. If Hagar was keturah she was just a second wife of lower status Concubinage wasn't associated with adultery so Ishmael was not illegitimate Similarly Mohammed's marrying a six year old girl may not have been illegitimate in the seventh century. .
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/concubine.html
(From Easton's Bible Dictionary) in the Bible denotes a female conjugally united to a man, but in a relation inferior to that of a wife. Among the early Jews, from various causes, the difference between a wife and a concubine was less marked than it would be amongst us. The concubine was a wife of secondary rank. There are various laws recorded providing for their protection (Exodus 21:7; Deuteronomy 21:10-14), and setting limits to the relation they sustained to the household to which they belonged (Genesis 21:14; 25:6). They had no authority in the family, nor could they share in the household governmen.
1 Chronicles 32:32 The sons of Keturah, Abraham's concubine, were Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. The sons of Jokshan were Sheba and Dedan. Keturah was Abraham's concubine which didn't mean she was an adulteress. If Hagar was keturah she was just a second wife of lower status Concubinage wasn't associated with adultery so Ishmael was not illegitimate Similarly Mohammed's marrying a six year old girl may not have been illegitimate in the seventh century. .
http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/concubine.html
Upvote
0
markie said:
That is what Muslims have been sayin gall along my friend. The Bible was 100% accurate and it was the word of God in truth, but over the 2000 year span that Jesus has been gone there have been a few individuals who have tampered with it.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
Muslim said:
The problem with your logic is based on a misunderstanding of how the Bible was translated.
When the scholars who put the KJV version together (to make a definitive English translation), they went back to earlier sources. Those earlier sources STILL exist, you can learn Koine Greek and go read the original for yourself and see how and what has been interpreted.
Your whole argument that there are lots of different Bibles is exactly the same as saying there are lots of different Korans, based on the fact that you can pick up a Penguin Classics version (as I have got), there's an on-line Noble Translation and an on-line Glorious Transaltion. Each one of these will differ somewhat, however, you can go learn Arabic and read the original and check to see how these compare. You can see what has changed in emphasis etc.. from when the Koran was finalised (which was NOT during the life-time of Muhammed!)
People here have been continually referring to Bible concordances etc, and you've not picked up on that. You can get Bibles with five or more different translations in columns so you can check verse against verse.
"Hadiths (traditions) tell that Zaid bin Thabit compiled the Koran and that Caliph Uthman later had an official version prepared"
http://www.solbaram.org/articles/islam04.html
Upvote
0
Montalban said:
If the original version of the Bible you have is in Greek then there are definately errors within the Bible because Jesus spoke aramaic. The Bible he recited was aramaic, yet the first known Bible was compiled in Greek? That's like the Muslims compiling the first Bible in Farsi rather than Arabic.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
Muslim said:
You are arguing then not THAT THE TRANSMISSION OF THE BIBLE IS IN ERROR, but TRANSMISSION THAT TOOK PLACE BEFORE THE BIBLE UNTO THE BIBLE IS IN ERROR which is an entirely different argument, you've been making the wrong argument all this time! People have been mentioning concordances etc, and you've probably not understood - but not asked. Clearly your whole notion about the Bible being flawed, is flawed. When has it been corrupted? Certainly people might make their own additions/changes/subtractions to various verses suit themselves, BUT we can always go back to earlier works to check against these.
As to a possibility of fault between Jesus and the writing of the Gospels...
Firstly, the Bible books were not written at the time of Jesus. They are not meant to be akin to a Photostat, as the Koran claims to be (that is; an exact replication of what was given). And we can get back to this false belief about the purity of the Koran at another point in time (see source quoted in previous post for a start)
At the time of Jesus, Greek was still the dominant cultural language. All the Christian writers up to Blessed Augustine wrote in it. All the church councils were in the east, and all done in Greek. So I don't know what you've got against Greek. It was the language of philosophy so that even Roman emperor philosopher Marcus Auerelius wrote in Greek. It was 'the' intellectual language.
However, it is clear that writing 30 years on after an event, a mere mortal might make errors. However, these men were inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is why the four gospels, written in different places at different dates are so alike!
You need to find 'faults' within the text to prove your point... and the only thing you've got to test them against is the other gospels! Mere supposition has been your point all this time.
Upvote
0
Montalban said:
My point was not that the only errors were in the original transmission. That is just the start of everything. As for the 4 men who wrote similar bibles having the holy spirit in them. I cannot put this into consideration because the holy spirit is something I don't believe and you and I can both agree that it is unecessary to use it to prove the infalliablity of the Bible. As for there being contradicitions in the Bible, there are many which goes to show that the Bible is not the true word of God. Because God does not make contradictions.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
No you're debate, and that of every other Muslim who's raised the issue is that the Bible has been corrupted. I've asked you where, when and by whom. I've asked all of you. You've replied that there's many different translations! Which is a non-sense argument.Muslim said:
Consider that in fact none of them lived (long) in isolation. There was a thriving Christian community. Even St. John who went off to exile, had he written a completely different book - ignoring the resurrection etc, it would have been rejected. It matters not one jot to me that you don't believe in the Holy Spirit. Not believing in the Holy Spirit still does not make your argument sound. And what is your argument...Muslim said:
Another of your trademark 'just-so' statements. Well, if you say it's so, it must be! That's the nub of it. You repeat an opinion long enough, you might even convince yourself!Muslim said:
However, even ignoring the fact you've spent all this time arguing the wrong thing, your idea of the Bible is somewhat (consciously or otherwise) coloured by Protestant ideas on what it is... a be-all and end-all book of spiritual guidance. It is not. It is a book that is posited within a larger framework; the church Jesus established.
Upvote
0
No, I just said he wasn't illigitamate. God still established his covenant through isaac. The peoplle dissobeyed God, but God is true to his word.Ishmael was blessed but his bloodline wasn't included in the covenant. That doesn't mean they were excluded but God meant for Jesus Christ to come through Isaac's bloodline, and he did. I think that is the covenant because God said He would establish it, it had spiritual implications. If you're talking about the physical covenant and who should get that land I don't know but I think the covenant of Abraham had spiritual implications more than physical. God promised Abraham he would bee the father of many nations and a lot of ketrur'ss son's went east. I read she had 6 sons by him. So chances are the Indians have just as much right to that land as current day Palestinians. God fulfilled His part now you have to fulfill yours which is romans 10:9.Muslim said:
Upvote
0
B
Bevlina
Guest
It has been proven by archeological evidence that Isaac was the one offered for sacrifice. They have found the proof. End of story.
Upvote
0
tulc
loves "SO'S YER MOM!! posts!
Let me see if I have this right:
1) the Bible we Christians read is corrupted (except the parts you like)
2) the parts you like (miraculously!
) agree with your beliefs3) the corrupted parts are there because God couldn't keep those pesky scribes honest
4) soooo doesn't that sort of make the scribes more powerful then God?
tulc(curious that's all)
Upvote
0
Bevlina said:
How can there be archeological evidence that Isaac was the one who was sacrificed? Did they find a note left by Isaac or Abraham telling everyone that it was that particular spot? That just sounds very amusing to me. You asked for evidence from the Old Testament and I gave it to you, yet you still disbelieve. Now I know you are just sticking to your beliefs out of defiance of the truth. Believe what you will, I will believe the truth and that is that Ishmael was sacrificed.
Upvote
0
B
Bevlina
Guest
Yes, you could say they left a note. They have found the ancient floor of the ancient Israelites depicting a picture of Isaac about to be sacrificed.Muslim said:
Sounds amusing? It's not, it's fact. I have already posted it on the board, but, like all other muslims, you have chosen to ignore it.
Archeological finds have backed up the Old Testament enormously! That's how we know the Old Testament is fact, and not corrupted.
Archeologists have found the Old Testament to be the only book they can trust.
Upvote
0
B
Bevlina
Guest
And ... there it is! Their names are incribed above the picture! Abraham, Isaac.Bevlina said:
Reember, Isaac was a miraculous birth! Ishmael was not.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
