Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | mistknight | 36101 | ||
In Islam's view, and according to the Koran's account of the story of Abraham's sacrifice of his son, it states that Ishmael was the son in question not Isaac. We read: "He said (Abraham): I'm going to my lord, for he shall guide me, my lord grant me of the righteous. Thus We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing son (Ishamel). When (Ishmael) reached age he (Abraham) told him: my son, I have seen in a dream that I am slaughtering you, what do you take of it. He said: my father, do what you are ordered, you will find me if God wills of those steadfast. When they both submited (To God) and Abraham laid him prostrate (for sacrifice). We called him: O Abraham, you have indeed fulfilled your vision, thus do we reward the righteous. This was truly the most grevious trial. And We ransomed him with a great sacrifice. We blessed his name amongst the generations to come. Peace be upon Abraham. (37:99-109)" This is also clearly narrated in the OT with few differences but in account of Isaac, not Ishamel. We read: "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)" And also, "And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (Genesis 22:12)" But if we refer to verse (Genesis 21:5) "And Abraham was an hundred years old, when his son Isaac was born unto him." and verse (KJV, RSV Genesis 16:16) "And Abram was fourscore and six years old, when Hagar bare Ishmael to Abram." "Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish'mael to Abram." In other words, Abraham's first son (Ishmael) was born when Abraham was 86 years old. His second son (Isaac) was born when Abraham was 100 years old. Isaac was "never" the only son of Abraham at any time "thine only son Isaac". On the other hand, Ishmael was the only son of Abraham for aproximately 14 years. This would put a big question mark on the OT's narrative and goes in support of the Koranic narrative of the story. In order to glorify the younger branch of the family, it would be quite understandable why the Jews would want this to apply to Isaac, not Ishmael. Is there any reasonable explanation for this? Mist |
||||||
2 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Morant61 | 36102 | ||
Greetings Mist! The term used in Gen. 22:12 is 'yachiyd'. One of it's meanings is 'beloved' or 'unique'. So, Gen. 22:12 isn't saying that Abraham had no other children, but simply that Isaac held a special position for Abraham. After all it was Isaac, not Ishmael, through whom God was going to establish His covenant with Abraham. In this sense, the term is similar to 'firstborn' in that it didn't always refer to the first born physically, but to the one whom the father had blessed. It is obvious even from the context that the term doesn't mean 'only child' since Genesis clearly records the birth of Ishmael prior to that of Isaac's birth. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
3 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | mistknight | 36154 | ||
You told me what the original word was in (Gen 22:12) but not what the original word was in (Gen 22:2). So could you tell me what the original word for that was? Also, where can I find a hebrew dictionary on the net? That's first. If what you said about "firstborn" as not meaning the phisically "firstborn" but who was blessed, then we should see this repeated tens of times in other situations, this however is not the case. Also, Ishmael was also blessed even before Isaac as you will see a bit later. Don't forget that in the three translations which I have seen, the same translation has been used, "Thine only son Isaac". In two verses not one. These translations are, KJV, RSV, and even the ASV. I find it quite strange that they would agree, especially that the RSV is presumably based on the "MOST" ancience manuscriptures. And the fact that Ishmael being the first born is concidered elementry. It didn't seem they had much doubt about what was written or how to translate it. As for God's covenant, we read in (Genesis 17:7-8) “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. 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.” In other words, Abraham's seed will recieve the covenant, "their", not his(Isaac) was used. This clearly means that none were excluded. He was curcumcised by Abraham which is a sign for God's covenant (Genesis 17:23) The question should now arise, is Ishmael concidered of Abraham's seed or not, well, the bible didn't leave that abstract? We read in (Genesis 21:13) "And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed." Unlike you stated in your answer to my question, Ishmael was blessed in many verses of the OT. Even before Isaac was even born. This is one of the verses stating this "And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation. (Genesis 17:20)" This all says straight out that Ishmael did inherit God's covenant. And I still don't have an answer to why "Thine only son" was used for Isaac when he was clearly not Abraham's only son at that time. I have yet to refer back to the original Hebrew manuscripts to see why this is the case. I'll also study the Koran more closely. Anything else you or anyone can add? Mist |
||||||
4 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Morant61 | 36170 | ||
Greetings Mist! Allow me to touch on your points individually! 1) What word is used in Gen. 22:2? The same word as is used in Gen. 22:12. To be clear, the word can mean 'only child'. However, it also has the possible meaning of 'beloved child'. This is obviously the case here since Genesis itself tells us of Ishmael's birth. The LXX translates this word as 'beloved'. 2) Ishmael and Isaac: You have selectively quoted from Gen. 17. Verses 17-21 specifically state that God will make His covenant with Isaac, not with Ishmael. Here is the text: "17 Abraham fell facedown; he laughed and said to himself, ‘‘Will a son be born to a man a hundred years old? Will Sarah bear a child at the age of ninety?” 18 And Abraham said to God, ‘‘If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!” 19 Then God said, ‘‘Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him. 20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation. 21 But my covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you by this time next year.”" Further, Gen. 21:12-13 states that Abraham's offspring will be reckoned through Isaac, not Ishmael. This same point is made in the New Testament. Rom. 9:6-9 says, " It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel. 7 Nor because they are his descendants are they all Abraham’s children. On the contrary, ‘‘It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned.” 8 In other words, it is not the natural children who are God’s children, but it is the children of the promise who are regarded as Abraham’s offspring. 9 For this was how the promise was stated: ‘‘At the appointed time I will return, and Sarah will have a son.”" Thus, even though Ishmael was a son of Abraham, he, nor his descendents, were considered Israel. The covenant was established with Isaac and his descendents. Now, my question is this: "Are you honestly seeking answers to this question, or are you on the forum to simply attempt to promote the teachings of Islam?" To me, it sounds like the latter! Because the Old Testment is very clear this issue. Gen. 17:20 says that God will bless Ishmael, "but" v. 21 says that the covenant will be established with Isaac. Through no fault of his own, Ismael was the result of human attempts to carry out God's promise. Abraham and Sara did not fully trust God to do what He had promised and tried to bring the promise about through their own efforts. However, Ishmael was not the promised 'seed'. Isaac was! This explains why in Gen. 21, God told Abraham to allow Ishmael to be sent away. He was not the promised son, Isaac was and it would be through him (Gen. 21:12) that Abraham's seed would be reckoned. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
5 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | mistknight | 36312 | ||
I find it ironic that you would think so. You can look at a previous line of messages I posted with the subject of Jesus/Joseph/Heli or Jesus/Joseph/Jacob. You will see that I have included a thanks for the help and the "satisfactory" answer I got. So I find it ironic that you would even question. Secondly, I can only tell you that being a person who has dedicated much of his life to the study to the relations between religions in general. But Islam and Christianity in particular, I've met with many Muslims and Christianis. Most of the questions I pose here were given to me by Muslims accompanied by the Koranic verses (and the ones given to me by Christians questioning the Koran I give to Muslim scholars). As an unbiased scholar I find it only elementry to ask those more knowledgable about Christianity of their religion, and about Islam of theirs. Thus refering it back to Muslims to appose their views, or to christians to appose theirs. That's why I demand detail from anyone, so my explanation would be satisfactory to the other side. I see no error in that. The other alternative if you wish is to tell Muslims that they're simply right in their accusations without asking people like you. Is that acceptable to you? I do concider the fact that I'll be hated by both Christians and Muslims, but you can't have it all lol. As for what I personally think. Then it'll remain nothing more than what I personally think. If you want I can give you the last "book" I recieved from Muslim scholars and I wouldn't mind you give me your replies to anything you can help me with clarifying. But that's another matter. Here's my email if you do want to discuss this matter more. mistknight@lycos.com Mist |
||||||
6 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Morant61 | 36314 | ||
Greetings Mist! Thanks for the response! I did check your other posts after I had asked the question and came to the same conclusion as you just stated. I wasn't trying to be rude, but every now and then we get individuals from Islam on the forum who try to "promote" their faith, while pretending that they are simply asking questions! Now, the new question is: "Did the passages in my previous post answer the points made by Muslims?" :-) Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
7 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | mistknight | 36317 | ||
Mostly yes. But the argument they gave me spanned a chapter in the book I told you about. It's called "What did Jesus really say?". It's a huge 706 book which is actually eating up most of my time. There are other arguments they pose in this matter, but I'm not about to post a "chapter" here lol. If you would further like to help me, then contact me on my email. I'll send you the "whole (you'll regret this lol)" book and you can see it. It doesn't use as far as I've seen any sensoring language, because I immedietly dismiss such works. Nonetheless, it is a Muslim book on Christianity. So you can guess what you'll find in there. I can understand it if you don't want to. But you do seem to know quite enough about Christianity. Mist |
||||||
8 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Morant61 | 36335 | ||
Greetings Mist! I'd be happy to read it! My e-mail is Morant62@hotmail.com. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
9 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | mistknight | 36743 | ||
I've found out for some reason that my emails aren't going... I hope the one with the file reached you, I sent it when you posted this message. I wonder why the other didn't go? Maybe the size of that file (1.5 MB)? Mist |
||||||
10 | Who was the one to be sacrificed? | Gen 22:12 | Morant61 | 36746 | ||
Greetings Mist! Sorry, but nothing as come through yet! Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||