Ishmael ... Not a Son of Abraham?

[Arthra]

On Ishmael again I'd suggest reading a scholarly article about the marginalization of Ishmael and Esau at

http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61278.pdf

It's in PDF but well worth reading.

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

The first thing that you should do is to read and understand the scripture that you contest before making these accusations without base. I really hate these types of claims because they don't have any real thought behind them. They are just thrown out there. Bring some substance with your accusation.

So BruceDLimber tries to change the course of discussion from using the Bible to evidence his claim to using Baha'i scriptures. Never mind that Baha'is scriptures are not on the table for discussion. Also never mind that those scriptures have no historical context to the Bible and were not contemporary to the Bible. No Christian or Jew either uses Baha'is scripture to interpret the NT/OT or find them authoritive in Christian and Jewish discussion. From an academic POV, the Baha'is scriptures have no relevance to interpreting OT and NT. BruceDLimber's logic is severely flawed on several levels, but I won't discuss them unless warranted. Engaging in the manner that BruceDLimber wants to engage is to completely obfuscate the significance of Christians trying to show him why Isaac is called Abraham's only son when we can obviously see that this is not literally possible. So BruceDLimber reason's that there must be a mistake and his Baha'i scriptures will clear this up. In the process, he uses more fallacious reasoning by pleading and appealing to the masses by reasoning that since he believes that his scriptures are true and that they explain Abraham's situation, he is then justified to use them. His scriptures are on par with the Bible and are somehow Biblical.

This is a gross abuse of what Biblical means. No one in the academic world will take him seriously. And I am sure that he would not allow a Muslim to use the Qu'ran and the ahadiths in that same manner to explain his scriptures. For some reason, his tactics only go in one direction, which to me, is a sign of dishonesty and irrational thought. The argument was never about whether his scriptures were true or that he couldn't use them as authoritative; rather, it was about whether he could use them in a Christian discussion on Christian interpretation of the passage in question, which in this case, they have no authority.

Secondly, how would you know if the spiritual message got through? Did you conclude that from Christian and Jewish writings?

Evidently, he didn't use Christian or Jewish sources. So far, he has yet to deal with the Bible only and study the passages to understand Christian and Jewish perspectives. One would think that Christian and Jewish perspectives would likely be a more true expression of what the text is saying since their histories are directly intertwined into the two testaments. Maybe he has already made up his mind that any explanation from them will be unacceptable, even if it is as good as the explanation from his Baha'i scriptures.

If you read and understand about the historical perspective, you can understand why Isaac was called Abraham's only son. It had to do with the Hammurabi code which was enforced at the time and place where Abraham lived. The Code allowed for children from handmaids to be legal heirs; but their inheritance was not guarenteed and could be revoked under certain conditions. The term "only son" refers to the legal status of Isaac and not just genetically. According to Hammurabi Code, the only legal son of Abraham was Isaac, thus the saying "only son".

But he is not interested in letting a Christian or even a Jew show him how the pieces fit together without confusion. The only confusion is the confusion that he is bringing to the table by trying to usurp the authority of Christians or Jews to explain the text to him. Evidently, he doesn't believe that we can explain it to him in a satisfactory manner that will open his eyes to understand what the passage means in its natural context. He wants us to use a foreign context (Baha'i scriptures) to understand. He would not let people of other religions do that to his scriptures. If you are going to play that game, then you must reciprocate. If you can't reciprocate, then you should refrain from the suggestion.

There is one point that I want to clarify. I initially said that the Hammurabi code explains the conditions of Abraham, but then after Arthra brought evidence that Abraham was born earlier than the time of Hammurabi, I started looking around and didn't see any evidence to support his being alive before 1900 or maybe 1800 BC/BCE; so, I adjusted my discussion to those dates. But now that I have looked a bit more, my original claim may in fact be true and would place Abraham under Hammurabi's rule (1800s-1700s BC). Regardless, it is easily established that the Hammurabi code and it's predecessor, Sumerian law, were the most highly influential codes in the Babylonian empire and what is referred to as ancient Mesopotamia. It appears that from about 4000 BC to about 1600 BC, the heaviest influence of legal relations among its inhabitants were from these two sources. It is also shown that Hammurabi codified many of the Sumerian laws into his own list, including the laws that deal with Abraham's story from the Bible. I will expound on this again in another post.

Greetings!

On the contrary my answer, based on the Baha'i scriptures, is very much Biblical! Our scriptures explain many otherwise confusing passages from the Bible.

The Christian and Jewish sources also explain things quite well, especially in the discussion that we are supposed to be engaged in. Since every scripture has confusing passages, we should then allow people use other religious texts to explain them? Are you willing to let others use this in explaining your texts? When dealing with difficult passages, one does not abandon the text. One looks for answers within that text. Also, if he doesn't find them, this should not signify that there must be a problem with the scripture. Perhaps there is a lack of understanding of other passages that holds the key to understanding other ones. I think that BruceDLimber may be asserting that these difficulties are evidence of flawed texts.

And if you choose to ignore this, then meaning no offense, that's your loss.

There is nothing to ignore since we are supposed to be discussing the Biblical passages--not the Baha'i texts. You are the one ignoring what the Bible is showing us in its natural context. If you would just listen, you will come to understand the questions presented.

As to the differences between religions, we're well aware of them as well as aware of the fact that these differences are expected and eminently proper! Again, our scriptures explicitly explain why this is so.

Irrelevant. Many explanations can be given, but that does not make them true or accurate on the basis that they are explanations. Some explanations can be incorrect. I presume that yours must be correct. And based upon what criteria?

Regardless, it provides what we see as valuable insights into the Bible and its teachings.

I will repeat. We are not discussing Baha'i perspectives. We are suppose to be gaining a Christian and/or Jewish insight.

Only from your (rather prejudiced) viewpoint.

There is nothing prejudiced about what I said. It is fact that we are not discussing Baha'i scriptures. If there is any prejudice, it is shown in your insistance that we use your text to gain a proper perspective. You have made a prior judgment that Christian perspectives are not valid in explaining the text; therefore, you must set us straight with your Baha'i scriptures.

Precisely what the Baha'i scriptures do, little as you know this!

Do you understand what source material is? Baha'i scriptures are not the source of Abraham's life.

As to what I meant by my last statement, just what it said. (It's probably not critically relevant, anyway, being a simple aside.)

(And the geanological stuff was included only as interesting, supplementary material; I wasn't trying to prove anything.)

Peace,

Bruce

I believe that you were trying to establish some credibility of your religion by association. Most of that genealogy is flawed and/or unsupported since there were Arabs before Abraham's time and there is no real proof that Mohammad blood line is through Ishmael. Abraham was not an Arab. He was of Hebrew origin. I won't mention possible problems with your other assertions.

 

[peaceful soul]

On Ishmael again I'd suggest reading a scholarly article about the marginalization of Ishmael and Esau at

http://www.sunypress.edu/pdf/61278.pdf

It's in PDF but well worth reading.

- Art

Why can't we actually get back to discussing the relevant verses to answer the OP? I didn't read the article since it has no relevance to answering the OP. We are not discussing whether Ishmael was marginalized or not.

 

[Arthra]

Why can't we actually get back to discussing the relevant verses to answer the OP? I didn't read the article since it has no relevance to answering the OP. We are not discussing whether Ishmael was marginalized or not.

Well if you simply won't read the article you'll never know ....whether it has reference to any relevant verses discussed.

- Art

 

[Arthra]

Through the promised seed of Isaac:
King David - The man after GOD's own heart
Christ Jesus - GOD's one and only begotten Son.


Through the sinful seed of Ishmael:
Mohammad - Illiterate, Liar, murderer, rapist, child molestor, inventor of islam & allah.
(this is not for insulting Mohammad, this is the truth about him as stated in the Q'uran)


With Love,
- Jefell

Jefell wrote "this is not insulting Muhammad..."

Oh the "sinful seed of Ishamel"!

Where's the love?

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by Arthra

Both Isaac and Ishmael were covered in the Covenant..

I think that you mean something different that what a Christian is saying. Before either son were born, God made the promise to Abraham of multiplying his seed and blessing all nations through his seed. I can agree with that part, but not the promise of a covenant relationship, which is exclusively via Isaac. Both sons were included in the ceremonial circumcision that was to be part of Abraham's acknowledgment of the covenant he had made with God.

Yes the prophetic line in the Bible came from Isaac..

I am glad that you can acknowledge that.

Yes Ishmael was not forgotten and his descendants became a mighty nation

So far, we agree.

and that prophet was from the brethren of Moses and the children of Israel...

If you are saying that the prophet of promise is coming from the Children of Israel, then I also agree.

God made a general covenant with Abraham and a lesser covennat as well.. the circumcision.

17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.
(King James Bible, Genesis)


- Art

Circumcision was not a covenant. It was a sign of agreement that Abraham acknowledged what God had already told him. It wasn't until Isaac, the promise child, was born that circumcision became an issue. Why not before? Because the promised one was the means by which the covenant would be fulfilled--through Abraham's seed--the legal heir as explained by the laws of Abraham's time. There was no need to ratify the covenant until that prophecy had occurred.

Let's go back so that we can get some insight. I am going to provide my personal commentary as I present these verses.

The initial promise and its stipulations:​

Gen 12:1 Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will shew thee:
Gen 12:2 And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Gen 12:4 So Abram departed, as the LORD had spoken unto him; and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.
Gen 12:5 And Abram took Sarai his wife, and Lot his brother's son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Canaan; and into the land of Canaan they came.
Gen 12:6 And Abram passed through the land unto the place of Sichem, unto the plain of Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land.
Gen 12:7 And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.

We do see that Abraham's wife was Sarai when this promise was given. This is significant in determine if Ishmael had any part in the Covenant and promise. Judging by what we see unfold later, it is logical to imply that the promise must be fulfilled through them--not a handmaiden.

We also see that the land the promise is to be fulfilled in is possessed by the Canaanites, the land of Canaan--a region that encompassed ancient Israel.

Gen 17:1 And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.
Gen 17:2 And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.
Gen 17:3 And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying,
Gen 17:4 As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.
Gen 17:5 Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.
Gen 17:6 And I will make thee exceeding fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.
Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.
Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.

We can see from this that events that followed were targeted to Abraham's seed that are to occupy the land of Canaan, which roughly corresponds to present-day Israel/Palestine including the West Bank, western Jordan, southern and coastal Syria and Lebanon continuing up to the border of modern Turkey. This is where Isaac and Jacob settled, thus where ancient Israel was formed.

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.

As you can see, circumcision was an acknowledgment of the Covenant.

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.

This shows that circumcision was not exclusive to Abraham's offspring in the ratification of the Covenant. But later on we will see that God only deals with the seed that comes through those who inherited the land of Canaan--the Israelite. They were commanded to be circumcised to keep the Covenant. There is no mention of Ishmael's descendants being required to be circumcised. Throughout the OT, we can see the promise of patriarchs being repeatedly given to the line through Isaac. There is no mention whatsoever of Ishmael being in the Covenant. Ishmael only participated in the Covenant as far as being a part of God's requirement for Abraham to agree to it since all of the household must be circumcised in order for it to be ratified. I suppose that you, Arthra, would claim that this is a bias. From there you would seek to reinterpret the scripture to get rid of that bias or claim some error with the understanding of that passage. Basically I can expect you to say almost anything short of calling the text corrupt.

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. Behold, in the tent.

This points to there being a child of the covenant of both Abraham and Sarah's flesh--Isaac. This shows that there is more to the covenant than just seed, which some would say that Ishmael is also a part of.

 

[peaceful soul]

Well if you simply won't read the article you'll never know ....whether it has reference to any relevant verses discussed.

- Art

Why should I read an irrelevant article since it does not answer the question in the discussion? Answer that, please. We are not discussing whether there is a bias against Ishmael, are we? Explaining a bias against him will not explain why there are two sons but only one of them is called an "only son". I hope that we are now speaking the same language.

 

[Secundulus]

Well if you simply won't read the article you'll never know ....whether it has reference to any relevant verses discussed.

- Art

I thought it was a good, scholarly, article. Its opening sentence is something I have noticed before in the OT. I have never been able to get a firm grasp on the meaning of that theme. Is it significant? I think so, but nobody seems to know why.

 

[Secundulus]

Why should I read an irrelevant article since it does not answer the question in the discussion? Answer that, please. We are not discussing whether there is a bias against Ishmael, are we? Explaining a bias against him will not explain why there are two sons but only one of them is called an "only son". I hope that we are now speaking the same language.

He isthe called the only son because he is the one through which the covenant first made with Abraham was passed down to Moses and to the Nation of Israel as a whole. The other is outside that covenant.

 

[peaceful soul]

He isthe called the only son because he is the one through which the covenant first made with Abraham was passed down to Moses and to the Nation of Israel as a whole. The other is outside that covenant.

Is this supposed to be a summary of the article? If it is, then at least they have good insight on that issue. The title seemed irrelevant to look at, given that Arthra seeks to often to distort the issue with trivial or irrelevant things.

Thanks.

Addendum: Isaac is the only son for at least 3 reasons: 1) the only son of the flesh of Abraham and his legitimate wife, Sarah; 2) the only son through which God promised the covenant to, given that Ishmael was born out of a distrust in God's promise that Sarah would bear a child from her own womb--not a substitute.; and 3) the only son of inheritance.

 

[Secundulus]

Is this supposed to be a summary of the article? If it is, then at least they have good insight on that issue. The title seemed irrelevant to look at, given that Arthra seeks to often to distort the issue with trivial or irrelevant things.

Thanks.

Addendum: Isaac is the only son for at least 3 reasons: 1) the only son of the flesh of Abraham and his legitimate wife, Sarah; 2) the only son through which God promised the covenant to, given that Ishmael was born out of a distrust in God's promise that Sarah would bear a child from her own womb--not a substitute.; and 3) the only son of inheritance.

No, that isn't really what the article said. Nevertheless, it was a scholarly article and well written. It simply caught my eye because it picked up on the pattern that throughout the OT there is a theme of the younger son being chosen by God over the older son.

 

[peaceful soul]

No, that isn't really what the article said. Nevertheless, it was a scholarly article and well written. It simply caught my eye because it picked up on the pattern that throughout the OT there is a theme of the younger son being chosen by God over the older son.

Now I understand. I wouldn't have expected that Arthra wouldn't post an article that was relevant to the topic. He has a habit of not dealing with the issue directly when he sees that he may have to concede some points. That is not always true, but it is a regular pattern. The topic didn't seem to fit with what I thought was the conclusion.

Thanks, Secundulus.

 

[BruceDLimber]

We are not discussing Baha'i perspectives. We are suppose [sic] to be gaining a Christian and/or Jewish insight.

Little as you realize the fact, the title of this group of threads is "NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGION," which makes the Baha'i scriptures eminently relevant to the discussion, the more so as they directly address (as I have shown) the topic of this thread!

If you want Christian-only discussion, there's another area for that.

And we have reasons for following and relying upon our scriptures fully as good, well-researched, and sufficient as do you for yours!

Nor am I the least impressed or moved by your repeated ad hominem attacks on Art!

Not everyone shares your viewpoint. Nor--from the intolerance I've read here--SHOULD share it!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[peaceful soul]

origianally posted by BruceDLimber

Little as you realize the fact, the title of this group of threads is "NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGION," which makes the Baha'i scriptures eminently relevant to the discussion, the more so as they directly address (as I have shown) the topic of this thread!

This quote is typical of what you and Arthra's problem is. You two don't seem to be good with reasoning--at least in this thread. That is why you miss the point. You are not comprehending what is being presented to you. You use a premise that does not lead to what would seem to be as more logical conclusion. Instead you arrive at a conclusion that seems illogical, but in your eyes it is OK.

In this section (NCR), anyone can participate in a thread, but there are times when a specific topic requires a response based upon specific material. In this case it is specifically concering scripture in the Bible; so, it would naturally follow that whatever opinions you formulate to explain that passage be rooted in the Bible--not the Qu'ran or the Book or Mormon. If we are discussing why the Bible says X,Y, or Z, then we should rationally consider that the Bible is the tool to arrive at the answer whether you agree with the Bible or not.

Your reasoning only holds up if we were determining who can participate in the thread; but, that is not what we are discussing. Non Christians can participate, but they must not try to explain other people's beliefs in a topic that is strictly dealing with a particular scripture since their scriptures are not part of the Bible. Would you like for a Mormon to use his scriptures to explain a passage in your scriptures?

But this thread is not about what Bahai's believe. We are trying to understand why the Bible says that Isaac is Abraham's only son. The context is the Bible--not your Baha'i scriptures. If we want to use other scriptures, why bother with the discussion since it would no longer be a question about what the Bible indicates? If the topic asks for your personal beliefs, that is a totally different issue.

If you want Christian-only discussion, there's another area for that.

Not the point. You are saying that since this section is labeled non Christian, that prevents any discussion on specific topics such as why the Bible says that Isaac was Abraham's only son? That makes no sense.

And we have reasons for following and relying upon our scriptures fully as good, well-researched, and sufficient as do you for yours!

That is not the topic of discussion. This part of your fallacy that you can't seem to grasp. You introduced this as a issue so that you could conveniently usurp the Bible with your own take on things from outside of the Bible. We are trying to determine from within the Bible why that statement is true. That is such a simple thing to understand. If you are examining the contents of a box of corn flakes, do you use the nutrition label from a box of fruit loops and then quote its contents as proof of what is in the box of corn flakes? That is the faulty reasoning that you are using.

Nor am I the least impressed or moved by your repeated ad hominem attacks on Art!

Maybe you think that they are ad hominems, but they are not designed that way. Both you are Arrtha have a knack of arguing irrelevant things and making them relevant. It is a fact that Arthra does this and I pointed it out. It is a distraction that is not needed in this discussion. He calls me and others biased because we don't hold his view, but he doesn't see his biases. He thens goes on a mission to show our biases by quoting off topic material, and when confronted, he either ignores what we present or puts another spin on it. He doesn't realize, and you too, that you are the ones that need to look at your own biases when discussing a Christian topic involving Christian scriptures specifically. If I did make an attack on Art that wasn't dealing with his staying on topic and with relevant issues, then point that out to me so I can apologize to him. I don't think that you realize how you (Baha'is) constantly try to make your scriptures relevant to a Christian based discussion. You have been pleading that your scriptures are relevant when they are not. You have used some fallacious reasoning to make your case. I don't buy it and don't want to hear it since it is irrelevant. This is not to be disrespectful, but your beliefs which are based on non Biblical material are not the deciding point on Biblical scriptures. However, you want to argue that they are Biblical because they point to Biblical matters--another bit of fallacious reasoning. The problem is that you can't see your own issues; so, you plow right on through. I don't think that you or Arthra are really interested in dwelving into the Bible to find the answer to the question presented. You just want to use your scriptures and end the discussion. Anything that doesn't reflect your scriptures is to be dismissed by claiming that there is error with the Bible--"some one screwed up". I notice that you don't use the same logic in the reverse direction. I suppose that it would not server your puporse.

Not everyone shares your viewpoint. Nor--from the intolerance I've read here--SHOULD share it!

Peace,

Bruce

You are way out in left field. This has nothing to do with my views vs your views. You are arguing just like Arthra by claiming intolerance. If anything, you are the one guilty, but you can't see it. Your view point is not based on the material from the Bible, but you want to make it relevant and scriptural. How is that being tolerant to obtaining a Biblical explanation for a Biblical passage? That is my problem with your approach. My issue with you and Arthra is that your differences in opinions are not Biblically based. They are Baha'i based; therefore, you have distorted the Biblical context if you make a conclusion on the matter. Just because you believe that your scriptures are somehow Biblical doesn't give you the right to impose them onto the Bible. Imagine me using the Bible to explain why your scriptures says X,Y, and Z. Would you accept my external source as being authoritive to understand the context of your scriptures? That is basically what this issue is about. I have already asked you and Arthra this question, but you evade it. You are eager to answer or to reply with questions of why we should use your scriptures to determine the answer.

 

[Arthra]

I hope we all can have a friendly discussion here without animosity or contention so I would like to continue if I might the theme of the thread

If you take the main premise in the OP:

"Ishmael and Hagar were tossed out into the desert because Ishmael was becoming a terror and a negative influence for Isaac."

I think the connotation that Ishmael was a "terror and negative influence" has been pretty much laid to rest..it involves a faulty translation of scripture of Genesis 16:12..

The part of the verse that talks about Ishmael as a "wildass of a man" could also be translated that he was a swift runner... and that he was a helper to his fellows and not as translated his hand is against others..

Follow the possible meanings of the Hebrew words in common lexicons such as Strongs and you will see variations in the meaning of the actual words used.."Yad" for hand can mean "against him" but can also mean "My hand is with someone"...so the text doesn't really support a negative connotation.



Now there are really two versions of the reported expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar.. One is recorded in Genesis 16:6 where Sarah "dealt harshly with her (Hagar) and sent her away" and the other is in Genesis 21:9 where Sarah sees the boy Ishmael "laughing".


Ishmael was still beloved by Abraham even after being taken to the desert by Him.. God provided for him and sustained him and his mother..that the Bible tells us. God promised to make of his descendants a mighty nation and twelve princes were to be descended from him


The Bible tells us that Ishmael also appeared with his brother Isaac at their Father's passing and when Ishmael himself passed on Isaac and the other brothers were present.

Does it not seem that someone who was against his brothers and fought them would also be reconciled with them later? and that there are two accounts of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael in the Bible not one...

- Art

 

[peaceful soul]

I hope we all can have a friendly discussion here without animosity or contention so I would like to continue if I might the theme of the thread

If you take the main premise in the OP:

"Ishmael and Hagar were tossed out into the desert because Ishmael was becoming a terror and a negative influence for Isaac."

I think the connotation that Ishmael was a "terror and negative influence" has been pretty much laid to rest..it involves a faulty translation of scripture of Genesis 16:12..

The part of the verse that talks about Ishmael as a "wildass of a man" could also be translated that he was a swift runner... and that he was a helper to his fellows and not as translated his hand is against others..

Follow the possible meanings of the Hebrew words in common lexicons such as Strongs and you will see variations in the meaning of the actual words used.."Yad" for hand can mean "against him" but can also mean "My hand is with someone"...so the text doesn't really support a negative connotation.



Now there are really two versions of the reported expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar.. One is recorded in Genesis 16:6 where Sarah "dealt harshly with her (Hagar) and sent her away" and the other is in Genesis 21:9 where Sarah sees the boy Ishmael "laughing".


Ishmael was still beloved by Abraham even after being taken to the desert by Him.. God provided for him and sustained him and his mother..that the Bible tells us. God promised to make of his descendants a mighty nation and twelve princes were to be descended from him


The Bible tells us that Ishmael also appeared with his brother Isaac at their Father's passing and when Ishmael himself passed on Isaac and the other brothers were present.

Does it not seem that someone who was against his brothers and fought them would also be reconciled with them later? and that there are two accounts of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael in the Bible not one...

- Art

We can definitely have a good conversation if you and BruceDLimber stop what you are doing and just use the Bible and any supporting Biblical references (not Baha'i scriptures) to answer the question of the OP. I remind you that Baha'i scriptures are not relevant and irrelevant comparisons of things are also not allowed. Can we be direct and just get this question answered? After that, we can go and talk about other stuff.

Arthra, can you please save these questions until we can answer the original question. You keep interjecting irrelevant material. This is exactly what I just touched upon. Speaking of animosity, do you realize that you are creating some by doing this repeatedly? I take tons of time to explain to you what you are doing while hoping that you would stop it; instead you just keep plowing on as if you never heard or understood. Please let's look at the Bible and try to understand why Abraham's only son is Isaac. Are you willing to do that? Yes or No.

Arthra, I think that I have already pointed out to you that just because Ishmael was present at Abraham's burial along with his brothers, that does not mean that they got along well. Have you considered customs of that time may have brought them together? Have you ever been to a funeral and were surrounded with other people that either you didn't like or that they didn't like you? Shall we infer that just because they were present and didn't cause you any trouble, that they actually liked you or got along with you? You try to infer too much from a piece of scripture. I have already told you that that is a dangerous way to think and interpret. Anyways, if you mark this post, we can come back and complete a discussion on it. Let's try to fianally answer the main question first.

 

[Arthra]

Please let's look at the Bible and try to understand why Abraham's only son is Isaac. Are you willing to do that? Yes or No.

You can "try to understand why Abraham's only son is Isaac" if that's what you want..

but the BIble tells us differently..

For instance....

And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

- Genesis 16:15

Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah.

- Genesis 25:1,2


For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac.

- Genesis 21:2,3

 

[BruceDLimber]

PS, given your continuing parochial and prejudiced statements--not to mention your grossly slanted terminology!--, I'm not even going to bother wasting my time trying to reply further to your jeremiads.

And little as you care to admit it, if an error (which I'll charitably term an honest mistake) exists, sometimes the only way to see it clearly is by using an external view!

As to addressing the Baha'i scriptures through whatever means, please feel free! Unlike some, we're not afraid of those who disagree with us.

Bruce

 

[peaceful soul]

originally posted by BruceDLimber

PS, given your continuing parochial and prejudiced statements

Unfounded!

Demonstrate it. Don't just make assertions. You have a prejudice in trying to use your scriptures to explain the Bible. The Bible has its own context and explains itself. It is not always easy to understand, but if you put in enough time and effort, you can make some sense out of most things. You never answered my question: Would you like for me to use the same rules to interpret Baha'i scriptures? Would you then, accept it and then use it in explaining your scriptures instead of using the Baha'i context? Would you allow the Bible to usurp the authority of the Baha'i scriptures, therefore, redefining your scriptures? The answer to these questions will tell me where you stand.

--not to mention your grossly slanted terminology!--,

You are the one who wants to redefine what Biblical means. You said that Biblical also includes Baha'i scriptures since they explain presumed errors the Bible makes. That was why you were trying to impose them on interpreting the Bible. Remember that your a priori was "somehow they got screwed up"?

I'm not even going to bother wasting my time trying to reply further to your jeremiads.

I think that you should be addressing your statement to yourself. You are the one who wants to redefine the terms by which the Bible can be understood. The Bible does not depend upon external sources that are not contextual to itself. Somehow logic escapes you when it negatively affects the Baha'i faith. My goal here is to prevent you from usurping the Bible's own abillity to interpret itself. You are trying to force the issue and create the problems. If you would back off and use the Bible only to interpret itself, we could really get along and you could actually learn something. You are just too stubborn to do that, or you have some other agenda. If the OP asked for opinions from other religions on what that term "only son" meant, then you could chime in; but that is not what the OP asked. Furthermore, even if the OP asked, that still wouldn't prevent you from looking at it from a Biblical perspective so that you would understand it from both sides, which would really make your Baha'i explanation loose its credibility or make its explanation much weaker. I think that is what you are afraid of.

And little as you care to admit it, if an error (which I'll charitably term an honest mistake) exists, sometimes the only way to see it clearly is by using an external view!

Again, your logic fails in understanding that not just any external source is acceptable. You want to allow everyone's religious sources try to explain when the Bible itself is the origin of the the story of Abraham. If there is any exteral evidence to use, it would be facts that are contemporary to the time and place that Abraham lived. That is why I was trying to get you to examine the Hammurabi code and later the Sumerian code. Instead of commenting and expounding on that, you refused to deal with it, which makes me wonder about your motives. I even tried to get Arthra to concede that this is the most probable external source that has legitimacy. He did not fully admit that my resources fit the discription of why Isaac was Abraham's only son. He also started to play the doubting game by saying that since we don't know when Abraham was born, we can't be sure. Lastly, he started to tell me that I am prejudiced and biased (presumably) in sourcing those ancient laws. Afterwards, he started talking about irrelevant things such as the Bible shows that Ishamael got along with his brothers as a sign that the Biblical prophecy that stated that Ishmael's offspring would be in tension with his brothers was somehow flawed.

It is just common sense, BruceDLimber, that you can't use any external source that you want. You have to have relevant facts. Your Baha'i scriptures are not relevant facts. I would like for you to present your scriptures in front of a group of academic students and see if they don't laugh at you when you try to dictate that Baha'i scriptures are biblical and are sources for interpretation of the Bible.

As to addressing the Baha'i scriptures through whatever means, please feel free! Unlike some, we're not afraid of those who disagree with us.

Bruce

You are continuing to construct a false atmosphere of my discussions. I never objected to others having a different viewpoint. You are being dishonest here. I only objected to what you call "evidence", wich are the Baha'i scriptures. You really should be speaking to yourself because you are the one who has not tried to deal with seeking an understanding from the Bible itself. You need to come clean yourself instead of trying to make it appear as if I am not allowing others to disagree. It is the kind of evidence that is allowed that I disagree with for obvious and logical reasons. Using any other religious text to explain another cannot be done in context of the religious scriptures in question if certain standards are not met. I already expounded on this. Both context and time are the main considerations. Just because another religious text has an explanation for something else that is external to it does not mean that this explanatory source is to be trusted. It has to go throuh its own critcism since it has to be able to stand on its own. Your scriptures have not been put to that test in order to be submitted as evidence.

For some reason, you have failed to reason throughout this discussion; therefore, you make the blunders in accessing my position altogether. That is why I kept trying to pound it into your brain that you can't do certain tactics (fallacies) and then expect to be taken seriously. I think that you should go back to the beginning of this thread and investigate the claims that I have made against your tactics and see how to correct them for your own sake. It is evident from your unwillingness to answer my questions that you wouldn't use the same tactics against the Bible to also reinterpret your own scriptures. Your logic only works for you, and you would never use it against yourself. That speaks volumes about your use of logic.

To all of you who may read this post, I would like for you to now focus on trying to get the Biblical understanding of what the OP is addressing: why Abraham's only son is said to be Isaac, when we know from the Bible that he had two sons. What could explain this in context of the Bible? External sources, if used, must be relevant and contextual to Abraham's life. They must provide substance. From this point onward, I will answer as fully as I can on how the Bible explains the OP.

 

[Luzeiro]

I hope we all can have a friendly discussion here without animosity or contention so I would like to continue if I might the theme of the thread

If you take the main premise in the OP:

"Ishmael and Hagar were tossed out into the desert because Ishmael was becoming a terror and a negative influence for Isaac."

I think the connotation that Ishmael was a "terror and negative influence" has been pretty much laid to rest..it involves a faulty translation of scripture of Genesis 16:12..

The part of the verse that talks about Ishmael as a "wildass of a man" could also be translated that he was a swift runner... and that he was a helper to his fellows and not as translated his hand is against others..

Follow the possible meanings of the Hebrew words in common lexicons such as Strongs and you will see variations in the meaning of the actual words used.."Yad" for hand can mean "against him" but can also mean "My hand is with someone"...so the text doesn't really support a negative connotation.



Now there are really two versions of the reported expulsion of Ishmael and Hagar.. One is recorded in Genesis 16:6 where Sarah "dealt harshly with her (Hagar) and sent her away" and the other is in Genesis 21:9 where Sarah sees the boy Ishmael "laughing".


Ishmael was still beloved by Abraham even after being taken to the desert by Him.. God provided for him and sustained him and his mother..that the Bible tells us. God promised to make of his descendants a mighty nation and twelve princes were to be descended from him


The Bible tells us that Ishmael also appeared with his brother Isaac at their Father's passing and when Ishmael himself passed on Isaac and the other brothers were present.

Does it not seem that someone who was against his brothers and fought them would also be reconciled with them later? and that there are two accounts of the expulsion of Hagar and Ishmael in the Bible not one...

- Art

Ishmael is not the forefather of arabs nor is he the founder of islam. Let it percolate.