Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Islam and the Qu'ran (Koran)

Author

Message

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi again Abdelaleem
Okay Smile

, now checking on the bits I didn't respond to:

Abdelaleem wrote:

You insist on references I’ll forward you to the “The Encyclopaedia Judaica” It is related that a renowned traditionalist of Jewish origin, from the Qurayza tribe, and another Jewish scholar, who converted to Islam, told that Caliph Omar Ibn 'Abd al-Aziz (717-20) that the Jews were well informed that Ismail was the one who was bound, but that they concealed this out of jealousy.

I accept this history of what happened during the reign of Caliph Omar. The reason I didn't reply on this point was that 717-720 is not documentary evidence of what Arabs believed before Mohammed. But you are right this story relates to an incident before Hadith, so this may be the earliest reference to anyone believing Ismail not Isaac.

Ibn Ishaaq wrote:

Another proof of our speech [i.e., that sacrificed was Ishmael (P)] is reported by Ibn Ishaaq: "Muhammad Ibn Ka'b narrated that 'Umar Ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz sent for a man who had been a Jew then converted to Islam and showed signs of true Islam. [Before his conversion], he was one of their scholars [i.e., he was a Jewish scholar] So he [i.e., 'Umar] asked him: which son did Abraham (P) sacrifice? He replied: 'It is Ishmael(P). By God, O Commander of the Believers, the Jews know that but they envy you - the Arabs.'

So is this the earliest actual document that it was Ismail not Isaac? When did Ibn Ishaaq live?

Abedelaleem wrote:

The Muslim legend also adds details of Hajar, the mother of Ismail. After Abraham drove her and her son out, she wandered between the hills of al-Safa and al-Marwa (in the vicinity of Mecca) in search for water. At that time the waters of the spring Zemzem began to flow. Her acts became the basis for the hallowed custom of Muslims during the Hajj.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 9, Encyclopaedia Judaica Jerusalem, pp. 82 (Under 'Ishmael').

Yes I see this below, but no date
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=277&letter=I

Jewish Encylopedia entry on Ishmael wrote:

—In Arabic Literature:

For the history of Ishmael, according to Mohammedan legend, see Jew. Encyc. i. 87, s.v. Abraham in Mohammedan Iegend; and Hagar. It may be added here that Ishmael is designated a prophet by Mohammed: "Remember Ishmael in the Book, for he was true to his promise, and was a messenger and a prophet" (Koran, xix. 55). Ishmael is, therefore, in Mohammedan tradition a prototype of faithfulness. He was an arrow-maker, and a good hunter. As a prophet, he had the gift of performing miracles. He converted many heathen to the worship of the One God. He left twelve sons. His son Kedar is said to have been an ancestor of Mohammed. Ishmael is reputed to have lived one hundred and thirty years; he was buried near the Kaaba. His posterity, however, became pagan, and remained so until they were brought back to Islam by Mohammed.

God bless
Steven
_________________
Jo5:26 The Father ... has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Ro6:10 the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
2Co13:4 he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God.

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem
I didn't answer re NIV as it appeared to be addressed to Colter.

Abdelaleem wrote:

Thanks Colter

1 - Deuteronomy 31:25-29 (New International Version)
- - - -25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD : …29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made."

They did.

Quote:

2- Also, Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

see 8:7 "they know not the rules of the LORD", not "they have changed the rules of the LORD". By "lying pen" Jeremiah is referring to Jewish Hadith called Sifra, Jewish commentaries. He has to be, otherwise he is contradicting himself in the next verse 8:9 because they "reject the word of the LORD", how can they reject it if it is already corrupted and not there to be rejected.

Also - the word "scribe" here does not mean "copyist", the Hebrew is from the verb "safar", make comment, from which Sifra and Sifre, Jewish Hadith come from.

Quote:

- - -The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"

As you can see, Allah himself said in the OT that there will be corruption in the OT.

No, Allah himself said in the OT that the Sifre would corrupt the Torah. Jesus says exactly the same thing in Matthew 15:6 فقد ابطلتم وصية الله بسبب تقليدكم.

Quote:

What about the Book of Genesis itself:

"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books, known also as the Pentateuch (meaning "five-volumed book"), were referred to in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible itself suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis, since Ac 15:1 refers to circumcision as "the custom taught by Moses," an allusion of Ge 17.

This is a badly written note by NIV Commentary because Acts 15:1 is pretty weak evidence for giving authorship of Genesis to Moses. There are much better verses, but yes, Christ also refers to Moses as author of Genesis. Is there a problem?

Quote:

However, a certain amount of later editorial updating does appear to be indicated (see, e.g., notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11). (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 2)"

So in reality, the book of Genesis had been tampered with by man. It had been corrupted.

That would depend who did the editing. If it was someone else inspired, as King Hezekiah (700BC) appears to have overseen assembly of Psalms and Proverbs, that is no problem. It appears King Josiah (600BC) made some restoration the 5 Books of Moses. That isn't a problem either.

Look at the three examples NIV Bible commentary gives

Gen 14:14 When Abram heard that his kinsman had been taken captive, he led forth his trained men, born in his house, 318 of them, and went in pursuit as far as Dan.

Gen 36:31 These are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom, before any king reigned over the Israelites.

Gen 47:11 Then Joseph settled his father and his brothers and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.

Only one of these Gen 36:31 is probably a later edit, not Moses' own words. I wouldn't be surprised. But then not every verse in the "Five Books of Moses" has to be. Clearly the last chapters of Deuteronomy where Moses dies and is buried weren't.

This is very different from saying that the entire section of Abraham and Isaac and Ishmael has been totally rewritten by people (unlike Hezekiah and Josiah) who had no authority from Allah to compile and restore.

Anyway, when do you think the rewriting of Gen22 happened? Before Jesus or after Jesus?
God bless
Steven
_________________
Jo5:26 The Father ... has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Ro6:10 the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
2Co13:4 he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God.

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Mon Nov 05, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi steven,

Steven3 wrote:

Sorry I'm trying to concentrate on the main issue = why the Qu'ran follows the the descendants of Isaac (Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Jesus) not the descendants of Ishmael?

It’s very simple question. Allah almighty follows descendents of Isaac (Jacob-Joseph and his brothers-David-Solomon-Jesus) because they were profits not because they’re Isaac’s descendents. This is because Quran is the words of Allah.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

o You didn’t answer the question “Who from Ishmael descendants has a big nation? It’s Mohamed

Because I don't need to. I agree, Abraham had far more physical descendants through Hagar and Keturah's sons than through Sarah's sons. But God told Abraham - it is through Sarah's son that your special son, single son, will be counted. Sarah's son was Isaac. Even the Qu'ran agrees that Sarah's son was Isaac. Unless anyone claims that the Hebrew text has replaced "it is through Hagar" with "it is through Sarah", which the context of the chapter makes impossible.

Quote:

Or do you deny that there is promise to Ishmael to have a big nation?”

No, of course not. The Hebrew has one promise to "Ishmael" of a big nation, and promise to "Isaac" of a small, special nation.

It’s not about head count. It’s about a profit from Ishmael. Yes Allah said in Quran that Isaac is from Sara.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

steven wrote:

I forgot to comment on this - and it is a good point, you are, reasonably, saying "only son" therefore Ishmael is the firstborn, therefore it can only be Ishmael. This point is very good

I’m sorry that you deal with this evidence by this simplicity. it’s the pivot of the evidence.

Well, it is a simple issue. Does et-beneku et-yehideku in Hebrew mean "only physical son" or "beloved son", "legitimate son"

Quote:

Also, you explanation of the word “only son” seems very irrational “Do you think that you’re better than the people who translated the OT from different languages to English and Arabic?”

The classical language I studied is Greek not Hebrew, so I'm inferring from the Greek. As I said it isn't so much a linguistic issue as a cultural one - et-beneku et-yehideku "only son". I'm 100% confident about the use of "only son" in Hebrews 11:17 that here it means "only legitimate son" "only son of your wife" "beloved son".

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

Now, as far as I can see from Gen22:2, it is the same as Hebrews 11:17.

Steven, I reviewed many English and Arabic translation. It all includes “Only Son” that has only one meaning to all. Otherwise the translators should translate it to “your legitimate Son” or “your legal son” . If translators would use in translations “your legitimate Son” or “your legal son” we might understand it’s not Ishmael. You need to submit evidences about these thoughts.
I can submit evidences that Ishmael is a legitimate son for Abraham against your explanation but I’m interested to see yours first.

Steven3 wrote:

As I said this is a cultural issue - not just a linguistic one. I asked you if a Wahabi prince would recognise the son of his wife as an "only" son, when he has other sons from his slaves and concubines, because that is how the
word bene-yehid is used by God to Abraham. Not according to me, but according to God himself, since he has already mentioned two sons. - please check if you do not believe me. Please read Genesis in Arabic and you will find.
First --- God mentions two sons.
Then --- God mentions one son is the "bene yehid".

It’s not about Wahabi prince. You know in the past any Moslem can have a slave. As I said it’s Allah’s law. The slave who born a boy a girl is recognized by being free immediately and full wife and her son is recognized as a full son and if he is the first then he is the “only son”. You make things harder for you. You need to prove that culture at that time doesn’t recognize slave’s son as “Only Son”.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

For your info, in Islam if someone have a child from a slave woman :-

 She immediately became free

 Her son is recognized as a son

He becomes "free". This is a good teaching of Islam, fair and just. I cannot remember what the Law of Moses teaches on this - it is probably the same, but it is not the question.

In Islam would the son, born of a slave girl have equal property rights to the son born of a wife?

If so that would explain why to Arabic readers the Van *Female with a Nice Mullet* version of Gen 22:2 "only son" is most confusing.

But I ask again, in Arab princely society would the son, born of a slave girl have equal property rights to the son of the prince who was born of his wife?

If so it is not a teaching that existed in either Abraham's time or Paul's time. They both regard the son of the slave woman as not having the same rights. Both OT and NT repeatedly hold this idea.

Yes, In Islam, the son , born of a slave girl has equal property rights to the son born of a wife .
I’m sorry Steven, what do you call confusion of Arabic reader is not right quote at all. Even ask someone Christian or a Jew or any religion what will he understand when he reads “Only Son”. I ask you to consider the wisdom of the OT translators, they’re fully aware what does it mean “only son”. If there is a doubt that it has another meaning, I think they will not hesitate to explain or use the right words.
Who said that Abraham’s and Pauls’s time regard the son of a slave woman as not having the same rights???? In the OT and NT

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:21 am Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Steven,

Steven3 wrote:

Hi Abdelaleem
1 - Deuteronomy 31:25-29 (New International Version)
- - - -25 he gave this command to the Levites who carried the ark of the covenant of the LORD : …29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made."

They did.

Quote:

2- Also, Jeremiah 8:8 " 'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

see 8:7 "they know not the rules of the LORD", not "they have changed the rules of the LORD". By "lying pen" Jeremiah is referring to Jewish Hadith called Sifra, Jewish commentaries. He has to be, otherwise he is contradicting himself in the next verse 8:9 because they "reject the word of the LORD", how can they reject it if it is already corrupted and not there to be rejected.
…

This is very different from saying that the entire section of Abraham and Isaac and Ishmael has been totally rewritten by people (unlike Hezekiah and Josiah) who had no authority from Allah to compile and restore.

Anyway, when do you think the rewriting of Gen22 happened? Before Jesus or after Jesus?
God bless
Steven

Steven, you commented on the Deuteronomy 31:25-29 by “ they did” changed the scripts of the OT.

Also, no one said that Genesis is rewritten completely. It’s edited. I can’t accept that the later editing was inspiration, new inspiration means new book or new chapter. As every book is an inspiration from Allah should be kept as is. New profits should have new books or add new chapter.

The problem with the NT and OT is bigger than you’re simplifying it.

My comment on the Genesis is not fully rewrite Please review my post the editing is in either two types:-

 The new of Ishmael is replaced by Isaac name

 The name of Isaac is added, the editor was half-hesitated to edit Allah’s word as he left the word “the Only Son”, This possibility can be supported by Genesis 22:16 where it contains “Only Son “ without neither Ishmael nor Isaac

Even if we accept the inspiration updates, There are many Christians studies that document none inspiration editing of the OT and NT. May be we can handle it in different thread.

Please find 2 examples

Professor Edmond Jacob's study. The Old Testament (L'Ancien Testament) [ Pub. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris "Que sais-je?" collection].

Edmond Jacob points this out, that there were originally a number of texts and not just one. Around the Third century B.C., there were at least three forms of the Hebrew text: the text which was to become the Masoretic text, the text which was used, in part at least, for the Greek translation, and the Samaritan Pentateuch. In the First century B.C., there was a tendency towards the establishment of a single text, but it was not until a century after Christ that the Biblical text was definitely established.

The facsimile reproductions edited by the Vatican City, 1965, contains an accompanying note from its editors informing us that "several centuries after it was copied (believed to have been in circa the Tenth or Eleventh century), a scribe inked over all the letters except those he thought were a mistake". There are passages in the text where the original letters in light brown still show through, contrasting visibly with the rest of the text which is in dark brown. There is no indication that it was a faithful restoration. The note states moreover that "the different hands that corrected and annotated the manuscript over the centuries have not yet been definitively discerned; a certain number of corrections were undoubtedly made when the text was inked over." In all the religious manuals the text is presented as a Fourth century copy. One has to go to sources at the Vatican to discover that various hands may have altered the text centuries later

Thus the human element in the Old Testament is seen to be quite considerable. It is not difficult to understand why from version to version, and translation to translation, with all the corrections inevitably resulting, it was possible for the original text to have been transformed during the course of more than two thousand years.

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:10 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem Textual analysis of the OT is a well documented area with scientific consensus by critical scholars. If you wish to discuss OT textual criticism then I'm willing to do so, however you need to read up the basic methodology and principles of this discipline. I suggest you start with Wurthwein. Now, back to whether "Isaac" has been substituted for "Ishmael" in those 6 verses. I'll repeat the question: When do you think that happened? Was it before Christ or after Christ? Please answer this question as it is basic to the claim you are making. Many thanks. Steven _________________ Jo5:26 The Father ... has granted the Son also to have life in himself. Ro6:10 the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. 2Co13:4 he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God.

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:59 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem Smile

Abdelaleem wrote:

Steven3 wrote:

Sorry I'm trying to concentrate on the main issue = why the Qu'ran follows the the descendants of Isaac (Jacob-Judah-David-Solomon-Hezekiah-Jesus) not the descendants of Ishmael?

It’s very simple question. Allah almighty follows descendents of Isaac (Jacob-Joseph and his brothers-David-Solomon-Jesus) because they were profits not because they’re Isaac’s descendents.

So why weren't Ishmael's descendants prophets? (not profits, but your English is excellent Smile

btw)

Why did God make a promise about Ishmael's descendants and then go and repeat it to Jacob and take an interest in Isaac's descendants?

Why did God repeat what he said to Abraham to Jacob, Isaac's son, then why did God follow Joseph and his brothers-David-Solomon-Jesus.

This is the problem. The OT gives these promises:

1. Promise of descendant to Eve
2. Promise of descendant to Abraham
3. Promise of descendant to Isaac
3b. promise to Hagar and Ishmael
4. Promise of descendant to Jacob
5. Promise of descendant to Judah
6. Promise of descendant to David
7. Promise of descendant to Solomon
8. Promise of descendant to Hezekiah
9. Promise of descendant to Zerubbabel

As you say, the Quran follows descendents of Isaac (Jacob-Joseph and his brothers-David-Solomon-Jesus) because they were prophets, but in the Bible - which contains the full text of those promises - they are not only prophets, they also receive repeat prophecies because they’re Isaac’s descendents.

The 3b promise to Ishmael is separate. If muslims believe that the Isaac and Ishmael promises are both to Ishmael then why are they different? The entire text of the Old Testament, all 39 books would need to be rewritten.

The Quran should read:
1. promise to Abraham
2. promise to Ishmael
3. promise to Nebaioth
4. promise to Nebaioth's son
5. etc.......
But it doesn't. The Quran doesn't even mention Nebaioth.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

Well, it is a simple issue. Does et-beneku et-yehideku in Hebrew mean "only physical son" or "beloved son", "legitimate son"Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,Now, as far as I can see from Gen22:2, it is the same as Hebrews 11:17.

Steven, I reviewed many English and Arabic translation. which includes “Only Son”

Most English Bibles have "only begotten son".

Tell me, does the Arabic here use a normal phrase "only son", or does it use "only begotten son" "only legitimate son" "special son"
بالايمان قدم ابراهيم اسحق وهو مجرب. قدم الذي قبل المواعيد وحيده

Quote:

I can submit evidences that Ishmael is a legitimate son for Abraham against your explanation but I’m interested to see yours first.

Sorry but Ishmael was not the son of Abraham's wife, but of a slave girl. Paul mentions "Ishmael and Isaac", and he recognises that Ishmael is "firstborn", and yet Heb11:17 calls Isaac "only begotten". I cannot change that. The OT and NT do not recognise Ishmael as a full "begotten" son of Abraham. The son of the slave-woman is not the son of promise.

Gal4:22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman. .فانه مكتوب انه كان لابراهيم ابنان واحد من الجارية والآخر من الحرة.

23 But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise. لكن الذي من الجارية ولد حسب الجسد واما الذي من الحرة فبالموعد

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

As I said this is a cultural issue - not just a linguistic one. I asked you if a Wahabi prince would recognise the son of his wife as an "only" son, when he has other sons from his slaves and concubines, because that is how the word bene-yehid is used by God to Abraham. Not according to me, but according to God himself, since he has already mentioned two sons. - please check if you do not believe me. Please read Genesis in Arabic and you will find.
First --- God mentions two sons.
Then --- God mentions one son is the "bene yehid".

Excellent, well that shows a very civilized aspect of Wahabi (and presumably all Islamic) tradition. You have confirmed that when a master takes his own female slave as a concubine, any children she bears are free and legally the children of her owner, with the same status as any children born to him in a legal marriage to a free wife. Good.

However, unfortunately Abraham wasn't a muslim, nor was he a Jew - he was living in a period predating such laws in the Law of Moses, and Abraham was not obliged to recognise Ishmael as a full legal son.

But actually Abraham wanted Ishmael to be the son of promise, Abraham wanted to treat Ishmael as a begotten son. This is why Abraham cried to God Gen17:18
وقال ابراهيم لله ليت اسماعيل يعيش امامك.

Question

But what was God's answer to وقال ابراهيم لله ليت اسماعيل يعيش امامك.? What did God say to Abraham in Gen17? Question

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Steven, where have you been? Welcome back.

Steven3 wrote:

Hi Abdelaleem
Textual analysis of the OT is a well documented area with scientific consensus by critical scholars. If you wish to discuss OT textual criticism then I'm willing to do so, however you need to read up the basic methodology and principles of this discipline. I suggest you start with Wurthwein.

I’ve read a little http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/text_crit.html
What I understood from “textual criticism” :-
• It’s a way to minimize the copiers errors and corruption
• It’s applied on the Greek manuscripts, not applicable for other languages Hebrew, Syrian, Aramaic, Arabic….
• It’s choosing what do you think is the best from what do you have
• It compares between the available manuscripts but it doesn’t drive to the right original
• You can have an omitted word but not a chapter
At the end you can’t say after the textual criticism now “I have the exact inspired words of god from Moses and Jesus mouth “

Steven3 wrote:

Now, back to whether "Isaac" has been substituted for "Ishmael" in those 6 verses. I'll repeat the question:

When do you think that happened? Was it before Christ or after Christ?

As we don’t have an error free script, I don’t know but I can guess it’s done during the Babylonian captivity when the Jews completely rewrote their history, they took ordinary secular history and transformed it into miraculous history, making themselves a "special race" of Gods chosen people on earth.
We should take into account the war from the trinity church against any book or manuscript against its books or believes.
Please feel free to discuss the 2 possibilities or at least choose the one you think it’ll be better for you.
Regards

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem
صباح الخير!

Abdelaleem wrote:

Hi Steven, where have you been? Welcome back.

Thanks, busy with work.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

NT textual criticism is Greek. Wurthwein's book deals with OT textual criticism which largely follows the same methodology.

Quote:

• It’s choosing what do you think is the best from what do you have
• It compares between the available manuscripts but it doesn’t drive to the right original
• You can have an omitted word but not a chapter
At the end you can’t say after the textual criticism now “I have the exact inspired words of god from Moses and Jesus mouth “

Well, no but you can say "I have 99.5% of the OT and 99.8% of the NT". Perhaps higher. We can certainly say with confidence in any major issue. I understand that textual criticism of the Quran hasn't developed, since there are only two copies of the original Quran - the Utman manuscript in Tashkent and Koptaki manuscript in Istanbul, and these copies are 99.99% identical.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

Now, back to whether "Isaac" has been substituted for "Ishmael" in those 6 verses. I'll repeat the question:

When do you think that happened? Was it before Christ or after Christ?

Well that is your opinion without having read Wurthwein who will show that we do have 99.5% error free OT text, and he's a critical scholar. But okay.

Question

Then how do you account that Jesus in the NT refers to God as the "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" not "Abraham and Ishmael and Jacob"?
انا اله ابراهيم واله اسحق واله يعقوب. ليس الله اله اموات بل اله احياء. Question

Look at all the NT references to Isaac:

Matthew 1:2 Abraham was the father of Isaac, and Isaac the father of Jacob, and Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers,

Matthew 8:11 I tell you, many will come from east and west and recline at table with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven,

Matthew 22:32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.”

Mark 12:26 And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’?

Luke 3:34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor,

Luke 13:28 In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves cast out.

Luke 20:37 But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed, in the passage about the bush, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.

Acts 3:13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him.

Acts 7:8 And he gave him the covenant of circumcision. And so Abraham became the father of Isaac, and circumcised him on the eighth day, and Isaac became the father of Jacob, and Jacob of the twelve patriarchs.

Acts 7:32 ‘I am the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob.’ And Moses trembled and did not dare to look.

Romans 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

Galatians 4:28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.

Hebrews 11:9 By faith he went to live in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise.

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only son,

Hebrews 11:18 (Show me Hebrews 11)
of whom it was said, “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”

Hebrews 11:20 (Show me Hebrews 11)
By faith Isaac invoked future blessings on Jacob and Esau.

James 2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?

If the Jews corrupted Genesis - which would mean completely rewriting the entire text, not just changing "Ishmael" to "Isaac" in Babylon, why did Jesus not correct this mistake? Why did Jesus continue teaching that God was God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob?

Why did Jesus select Paul and let Paul teach that
ولا لانهم من نسل ابراهيم هم جميعا اولاد. بل باسحق يدعى لك نسل. Question

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Mon Nov 12, 2007 10:32 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Steven3 wrote:

Then how do you account that Jesus in the NT refers to God as the "God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob" not "Abraham and Ishmael and Jacob"? انا اله ابراهيم واله اسحق واله يعقوب. ليس الله اله اموات بل اله احياء. Question

Or "Abraham and Ishmael and Nabioth"

Note also this speaks to the issue of the difference between "only son" الابن الوحيد. and "only begotten son".الابن الشرعي الوحيد.

Quote:

Romans 9:7 and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but “Through Isaac shall your offspring be named.”ولا لانهم من نسل ابراهيم هم جميعا اولاد. بل باسحق يدعى لك نسل. Question

God bless
Steven

_________________
Jo5:26 The Father ... has granted the Son also to have life in himself.
Ro6:10 the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God.
2Co13:4 he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God.

Abdelaleem
Big Goldfish

Joined: 27 Oct 2007
Posts: 66

Posted: Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:25 am Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

I really didn’t search a lot about the promises in the OT but let us kill an issue after another. Let us concentrate on:-

• The original question is “whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael?”
•
• Then I paid your attention about “The Only Son” should mean Ishmael
•
• But you took us into another question “Is Ishmael is a full legal son of Abraham?”
•

Abdelaleem wrote:

So the right script should be one of the following two cases:

--- First possibility –Only son, Ishmael-- Genesis 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son,Ishmael, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."[/color]

--- Second possibility-Only son, no name--- Genesis 22:2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son,______, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about."[/color]

Comments on the 2 possibilities:-
--- First possibility ----
-------------------------Absolutely correct as Ishmael is the only son
-------------------------It’s a stretched text, it repeats the sacrifice name “the only son” and Ishmael
--- Second possibility----
-------------------------Absolutely correct as it’s said the only son whom is Ishmael ,can be understood from the context
-------------------------It’s a optimized text, it doesn’t repeat the sacrifice name. it uses one name “the only son”
------------------------ Dear Steven it’s like Quran no name as it’s understood from the context

The second possibility can be supported by Genesis 22:16

Regarding the secondary issue “Is Ishmael is a full legal son of Abraham?”

Gen 16:2-3

1 Now Sarai, Abram's wife, had borne him no children. But she had an Egyptian maidservant named Hagar; 2 so she said to Abram, "The LORD has kept me from having children. Go, sleep with my maidservant; perhaps I can build a family through her."
Abram agreed to what Sarai said. 3 So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian maidservant Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. 4 He slept with Hagar, and she conceived.

We note the following:-
• The objective of Sara is building a family, to have a boy , it’s obvious that the boy will be a full legal boy because she lost the hope to have a child. Then let us have a legal son and Sara intended to call him a son of the family
•
• So, Hager was “given to Abram to be his wife” not a slave. So, Hager was full legal wife of Abraham accordingly she has the full rights of a wife. Consequently he son is a full legal son has the full rights
•
• If Hager was given as a slave to Abraham, Allah will not say “gave her to her husband to be his wife”
•
• Hager was not just a slave because the objective of a slave woman is to satisfy the master sexually not to give children
•
You hypothetically supposed that Sara gave Abraham a slave just to sleep with her is not valid

Here is a good point, let us agree on the following

• Prophets are the best of the best of humans
•
• Allah almighty is the fair
•
• If we don’t accept injustice (dealing with 2 sons differently) then neither Allah nor Abraham will do
•
This is the case, I expect you discuss openly.

Now I’ll reply on your notes

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

Steven, I reviewed many English and Arabic translation. which includes “Only Son”

Most English Bibles have "only begotten son".

Dear Steven,

I went to http://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=only+son&qs_version=72 and searched in all English translations and found that they all have “Only Son” not even one translation has “Only begotten son”.

I understand you don’t like to believe by your heart but about your pure thinking without emotions.

If you really want the truth Allah will guide you to it.

Also, all Arabic translation including the one you gave says “Only Son”.

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

I can submit evidences that Ishmael is a legitimate son for Abraham against your explanation but I’m interested to see yours first.

First let us be in OT as it’s more trusted than NT.

Second, you disappointed me by taking from Paul. Paul is the father of Christianity different from Jesus Christianity. Also, Paul is the God Father of the trinity church. I was wondering how Unitarian recognizes Paul?

We can take Paul into a different thread.

Anyway, let us keep it in OT .

Steven3 wrote:

I proved above that Hager was not a slave when she born Ishmael.

She was a full wife. We Moslems believe that prophets are best of the best of human beings.

They’re very fair and Allah is the Fair. No one can pertain fairness more than either Allah or Abraham.

This is the right true believe.
Regards

Steven3
Lion King

Joined: 10 Jul 2007
Posts: 1205

Location: UK

Posted: Fri Nov 16, 2007 5:44 pm Post subject: Re: whether Abraham was tested to sacrifice Isaac or Ishmael

Hi Abdelaleem Smile

Thanks for your reply.

Abdelaleem wrote:

Then I paid your attention about “The Only Son” should mean Ishmael
•
• But you took us into another question “Is Ishmael is a full legal son of Abraham?”

Well these are actually the same question
Romans 9:7 says:
ولا لانهم من نسل ابراهيم هم جميعا اولاد. بل باسحق يدعى لك نسل.
Hebrews 11:17
بالايمان قدم ابراهيم اسحق وهو مجرب. قدم الذي قبل المواعيد وحيده
These two verses tell us (Ro9:7) that in the teaching of Jesus and his apostles the older son was not the son of promise and (Heb11:17) that "only-begotten son" does not mean "only natural son".

Does the Quran say that Ishmael was "only son" when Abraham sacrficed his son? Because in the Genesis record it repeatedly shows the sacrifice comes after both sons are born Gen 21:10
فقالت لابراهيم اطرد هذه الجارية وابنها. لان ابن هذه الجارية لا يرث مع ابني اسحق

Quote:

Dear Steven it’s like Quran no name as it’s understood from the context

Well, no. The name "Isaac" is there in the Genesis text, repeatedly. And more importantly there is this discussion between God and Abraham about whether Ishmael or Isaac is the son of promise, which proves both children were alive before the sacrifice.

Quote:

We note the following:-
• The objective of Sara is building a family, to have a boy , it’s obvious that the boy will be a full legal boy because she lost the hope to have a child. Then let us have a legal son and Sara intended to call him a son of the family

This is true. But God did not agree with Sarah. Gen 17:17-20

Abraham asked that Ishmael could be the son of promise Gen17:18
وقال ابراهيم لله ليت اسماعيل يعيش امامك.
But God said "no, Isaac, not Ishmael" Gen 17:19
فقال الله بل سارة امرأتك تلد لك ابنا وتدعو اسمه اسحق. واقيم عهدي معه عهدا ابديا لنسله من بعده.

Quote:

Here is a good point, let us agree on the following

• Prophets are the best of the best of humans
•
• Allah almighty is the fair
•
• If we don’t accept injustice (dealing with 2 sons differently) then neither Allah nor Abraham will do
•
This is the case, I expect you discuss openly.

Okay, I will say openly that God is not "fair" by human standards. He does not need to be, he is God.

I accept what you are saying that Abraham, in not giving the right of firstborn to the son of the slave-girl was breaking muslim teaching (out of interest I would like to know if this teaching is Quran or Hadith?) . Jacob also broke with this by treating his 11th son (Joseph) as the firstborn because he was the son of his favourite wife Rachel Gen 30:24.
ودعت اسمه يوسف قائلة يزيدني الرب ابنا آخر
What is important about Jacob and Joseph is that Muhammed in the Quran follows the 11th son, Joseph (Yusuf), not the 1st son Reuben (not mentioned in Quran), so Muhammed is not being fair to the firstborn either - even though his mother Leah was actually a legal wife, not a concubine.
see http://mb-soft.com/believe/txh/tribes.htm

The thing is, both Abraham and Jacob lived in pre-Islamic society. They also lived before the Law of Moses. They did not have to be fair to their children in the way either Law of Moses or Islamic tradition require.

You are familiar with the story of Antar and Abla? I believe this story is pre-Islamic, correct?

Legend of Antar and Abla wrote:

But Antar is cursed by his birth as the illegitimate son of an Arab tribesmen and a black slave. To overcome repeated rebuff's from Abla's family, he must repeatedly demonstrate his worthiness through unimaginable feats of strength, kindness and bravery.

The dictionary gives various Arabic words for "illegitimate"

Arabic Dictionary wrote:

Illegitimate
غير شرعي, ولد غير شرعي, غير منطقي, غير مبرر, نغل

I don't know which one of these is appropriate to Antar. Perhaps you can help me improve my Arabic and tell me which is the correct (polite) word for Antar?

Quote:

Now I’ll reply on your notes

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

Steven, I reviewed many English and Arabic translation. which includes “Only Son”

Most English Bibles have "only begotten son".

Are you sure you were looking at the correct verse? Hebrews 11:17

King James Bible 1611 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,

New American Standard Bible (©1995) 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;

American Standard Version 17 By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten'son ;

Douay-Rheims Bible (Catholic) 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered Isaac: and he that had received the promises, offered up his only begotten son;

English Revised Version 17 By faith Abraham, being tried, offered up Isaac: yea, he that had gladly received the promises was offering up his only begotten son;

...also Darby, Webster's, Young's Literal, etc.

Quote:

Also, all Arabic translation including the one you gave says “Only Son”.

And all Arabic translations say "only son" is "Isaac" correct?
بالايمان قدم ابراهيم اسحق وهو مجرب. قدم الذي قبل المواعيد وحيده
Now, there are two possibilities

1. The OT and NT texts are uncorrupted.

2. The following occured
1500BC - Moses originally wrote "Ishmael"
300BC - All OT manuscripts were corrupted from "Ishmael" to "Isaac"
27AD - Jesus came as a prophet and spoke the truth "Ishmael".
40-70AD - all NT manuscripts were corrupted again from "Ishmael" to "Isaac"
600AD - Muhammed came and said "Ishmael", but forgot to have his scribes write the name "Ishmael" in the text of the Quran dealing with Abraham's sacrifice.
800AD - the Hadith came and spoke the truth finally "Ishmael. (though not all Islamic tradition says "Ishmael", some says "Isaac")

http://hadith.al-islam.com/Display/Display.asp?hnum=2658&doc=6

Quote:

‏حدثنا ‏ ‏يونس ‏ ‏أخبرنا ‏ ‏حماد ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏عطاء بن السائب ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏سعيد بن جبير ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏ابن عباس ‏
‏أن رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏إن ‏ ‏جبريل ‏ ‏ذهب ‏ ‏بإبراهيم ‏ ‏إلى ‏ ‏جمرة العقبة ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏ثم أتى ‏ ‏الجمرة الوسطى ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏ثم أتى ‏ ‏الجمرة القصوى ‏ ‏فعرض له الشيطان فرماه بسبع حصيات ‏ ‏فساخ ‏ ‏فلما أراد ‏ ‏إبراهيم ‏ ‏أن يذبح ابنه ‏ ‏إسحاق ‏ ‏قال لأبيه يا ‏ ‏أبت أوثقني لا أضطرب فينتضح عليك ‏ ‏من دمي إذا ذبحتني فشده فلما أخذ ‏ ‏الشفرة ‏ ‏فأراد أن يذبحه نودي من خلفه

I prefer to believe 1:
i. It has the bulk of manuscript and textual evidence.
ii. There is no record of a giant conspiracy among Jews to edit the OT. In fact 100s of Jewish commentaries (Jewish Hadith) confirm the OT text.
iii. There is no record of a giant conspiracy among Christians to edit the NT. Again 100s of Christian commentaries (our Hadith) confirm both the OT and the NT text.
iv. Even some islamic tradition says "Isaac". Yet not one Jewish or Christian tradition says "Ishmael". Not one.
v. Muhammed confirms that the line of promise goes through Isaac by telling the story of Isaac's sons and grandsons, not of Ishmael's sons.
vi. Even the Quran admits that Jesus was descended from Isaac not Ishmael.

It is clear from 17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, offered up Isaac, and he who had received the promises was in the act of offering up his only begotten son, but "only [begotten] son" here means what the Greek means - "special son".

Let me share something with you. Apart from Isaac, the Bible also uses the term "only begotten" of Jesus:
Christ = only-begotten son of God. John 3:16
لانه هكذا احب الله العالم حتى بذل ابنه الوحيد لكي لا يهلك كل من يؤمن به بل تكون له الحياة الابدية.
Believers = sons of God. Gal 3:26
لانكم جميعا ابناء الله بالايمان بالمسيح يسوع.
Now, in Arabic perhaps there is no distinction between "only begotten son" and "sons" in these two verses, but you can see from the above how the Bible views son-ship. There are two classes of sons.
* Isaac was the "only [begotten] son" even though Ishmael was a son.
* Christ is the "only [begotten] son" even though all believers are sons by adoption.

Quote:

Steven3 wrote:

Quote:

I can submit evidences that Ishmael is a legitimate son for Abraham against your explanation but I’m interested to see yours first.

First let us be in OT as it’s more trusted than NT.

Why? Says who? When I said 99.5% for the OT and 99.0% for the NT (which are very critical figures) I was simply talking about verses with variant readings - that doesn't mean "more trusted", because there are are other criteria. As I said you'd need to study Wurthwein and Aland (etc) to understand how textual criticism works. The NT is in fact more trusted than the OT, and more than the Quran because of diversity of witnesses. The NT has 100s of manuscripts, the Quran only has 2 - 1 in Tashkent, 1 in Istanbul. But it is impossible to understand what I'm talking about without studying textual criticism.

Quote:

Second, you disappointed me by taking from Paul. Paul is the father of Christianity different from Jesus Christianity. Also, Paul is the God Father of the trinity church. I was wondering how Unitarian recognizes Paul?

You are mistaken - the NT documents are nearer to Christ than the OT are to Moses. The Unitarian has faith in the NT as much or more than the OT.

Quote:

We can take Paul into a different thread.

Anyway, let us keep it in OT .

I don't see why, the NT agrees with OT, Paul agrees with Moses, why reject one not the other? You proposed that the corruption of the OT happened in 300BC, therefore Paul is after the corruption of the OT, therefore you are proposing a second corruption, but Paul should be a restoration of the truth if Jesus (Isa) was a prophet. And besides, Paul agrees, with Jesus. Matt 8:11
واقول لكم ان كثيرين سيأتون من المشارق والمغارب ويتكئون مع ابراهيم واسحق ويعقوب في ملكوت السموات