• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

According to the Bible: All prophets before Muhammad were Muslims !!

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
It amazes me to see you trying catch your tail, an empty respond is is worthless, you haven't addressed the points I have raised, just appealing to what others have said. please go ahead and continue to amaze me, I will stand by and enjoy the scenery. have good day.
You must be really blinding yourself with amazement....
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
leave your claim aside, are you willing to discuss with me, the point of discussion; verse 18:18 ?.
There is nothing more that needs to be discussed.
You made a claim, failed to support it, got your *** handed to you by those who know more about it than you.

Nothing more needs be said.
Now I understand you feel differently, but your feelings do not change the reality of the situation.
 

Britedream

Active Member
There is nothing more that needs to be discussed.
You made a claim, failed to support it, got your *** handed to you by those who know more about it than you.

Nothing more needs be said.
Now I understand you feel differently, but your feelings do not change the reality of the situation.

You tell me what is my claim, and What I failed to support,?
 

David1967

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Muhammad was indeed a psycho, not the OP.

OK, then using that kind of logic. How is Mohammed any more a psycho than say Moses, or Joshua? And (serious question) Have you read the Quran? It is not nearly as bloody as the Old Testament.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Doesn't it occur to you why I am ignoring you, and your responds in the past?, nothing in your responds deserves replying to , you always committe the fallacy of attacking the Messenger instead of the message , in order to compensate for your inability to respond to the points of discussion, and you leave the verse, and dance around other verses, just for justification.
Oh, good grief. :facepalm:

Your "ignorance" beggars belief.

You have no idea or no understanding on how to read and analyse literature. What you have done is simply twist a single verse, to promote Muhammad. If anyone is being bias, is you, britedream.

You wrote:

As a rule of thumb , whoever speaks, he means what he says literally, and should be interpreted as to that, however if the interpretation results in an impossible meaning, then we have to look at the inner meaning, provided, it is viable, and evidenced.

I was following the thumb of rule, as have tumah, and everyone else who debated you and disagreed with your cherry-picking.

And you are wrong, britedream. All meanings to any passage from a passage should be found within the book, and not attempting to modify it as you have.

Verse 16 talk of assembly of Israelites at Mount Horeb, in which the older generation witnessed fire on the mountaintop. The four verses are clearly referring that contemporary Israelites will have a new prophet, a prophet that they should listen to.

As Greased Scotsman have pointed to you, a verse was never meant to be read in isolation, and the interpretation was never meant to be interpreted in isolation.

I was never skirting around, or as you put it "dance around" verse 18. I have been taking the chapter as a whole, or a passage (verses 15 to 18 as a whole), because that's how verse 18 was meant to be understood.

If you have read from Genesis to the book of Joshua, you would have understood that the whole story from Abraham and to Joshua, is all about God fulfilling his original covenant (promise) to Abraham, in Genesis 17. It was the same covenant to be fulfilled along Abraham's line - Isaac and Jacob.

This covenant was to ensure that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - thus the Israelites or Hebrews, the twelve tribes of Israel-Jacob - would live in the land of the Canaanites, which they would call home.

At the time of Deuteronomy, Moses didn't complete god's covenant in Abraham's covenant; Moses only did his part was to liberate the Israelites out of slavery and out of Egypt, in the "exodus" that lasted 40 years. God-Abraham covenant was only fulfilled when they took Canaan, under a new prophet, Joshua.

You wrote:

Sorry, What you are saying here, has no touch with reality. verse 18:18 is a prophecy where God said " I will raise them a prophet......"; Moses can't say I will raise them a prophet; prophet is only raised by God, you are committing a blasphemy. in the other verses Moses said, Lord will raise them a prophet.

God did choose Joshua.

Seriously, britedream. Did you even bother to read Deuteronomy to the end of the book (Deuteronomy 34), with Moses' passing?

Deuteronomy 34 showed that Joshua was chosen among them, which I have highlighted in red:

Deuteronomy 34:7-9 KJV said:
[7] And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.
[8] And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days: so the days of weeping and mourning for Moses were ended.
[9] And Joshua the son of Nun was full of the spirit of wisdom; for Moses had laid his hands upon him: and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses.

I am agnostic, not Jewish or Christian, and yet I have better scholarship than you, because I have actually read the books from Genesis to Joshua. I am basing my interpretation solely where it belonged; you on the other hand, have been dancing around verse 18, ignoring the related verses (18:15-17) and ignoring Deuteronomy 34:9, when a new prophet was risen among them.

You keep saying that the new prophet would be risen by God. Well, read Deuteronomy 34:9, britedream.

I have highlighted the above passage in red. Joshua received the "spirit of wisdom" (34:9), another word for "prophethood" for which all prophets supposed receive such "wisdom" from God and they are supposedly spoke on god's behalf, which corresponded to Deuteronomy 18:18 - "...and will put my words in his mouth..."

And the passage "and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses" (34:9), corresponded with 18:15 a prophet "unto like thee; unto him ye shall hearken", and with 18:18 "like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

And in Joshua 1:1, God did spoke to Joshua:
Joshua 1:1 said:
Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister, saying,

Joshua 1:5 said:
There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

And God spoke through Joshua, which the Israelites were to follow Joshua's command, as they did with Moses, and just as the newer generation of Israelites followed Moses' command, the Israelites were to follow Joshua:

Joshua 1:17 said:
According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things, so will we hearken unto thee: only the Lord thy God be with thee, as he was with Moses.

This passage (Joshua 1:17) corresponds with (Deuteronomy 18:15),

The book of Deuteronomy was written as meant to be Moses' instructions to the Israelites once Moses is gone, and they were to cross the Jordan, and settled in Canaan. It had nothing to with setting another new religion by Muhammad. Nowhere in verse 18 say anything about a new religion.

Deuteronomy 18 is simply parts of those instructions.

I have from the start, when I had joined this argument between you and tumah, have pointed out that you should read and understand the complete chapter in context, including that of verse 18, britedream.

I didn't leave out verse 18, but have repeatedly explain to you that the chapter have been divided into 3 sections:

  1. 18:1-8, the rights given to the Levites, when everyone settled in Canaan.
  2. 18:9-14, what they shouldn't do - follow the Canaanite religious practices or customs.
  3. 18:15-19, and who they should listen to, when they enter Canaan - the new prophet, Moses' successor.
Each section has a common denominator: what are the Israelites are to do when they cross the Jordan, and move into Canaan, their new home. Nothing in those 22 verses indicate that a new religion will start nearly 2000 years later.

Verse 15 to 18 is about listening to their new prophet, when Moses died, that prophet would be the one who would succeed him, and lead them as Moses did for 40 years. These verses are about his successor, whom they should heed. The "unto like thee" or "like him" has nothing to do about a new prophet starting a new religion.

Moses wasn't starting a new religion, because as the Exodus keep repeating, they were to follow the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". Moses was just one of the many parts, who was meant to fulfill Abraham's original covenant (Genesis 17), which was the same covenant given to Isaac (Genesis 17:7, 10, 19) and to Jacob. The covenant was that the land of Canaan would be home to their descendants, the Israelites.

Neither Ishmael, nor Muhammad was ever part of that covenant.

You constant contradict yourself. For instance, you tell tumah to leave out Islam and Judaism:

Tumah, please, leave Islam and Judaism out of your mind, and come to the verse with out a bias, if you ever want to understand my point. I will show you, how it can be understood:

And yet, the whole idea of you quoting 18:18, is to start a claim that the new prophet will start a new religion, thus Islam.

You lack integrity, when you say one thing, but you do exactly what you have told others not to do.

And you are certainly very incompetent in scholarship. You keep making pitiful excuses and using straw man.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
It amazes me to see you trying catch your tail, an empty respond is worthless, you haven't addressed the points I have raised, just appealing to what others have said. please go ahead and continue to amaze me, I will stand by and enjoy the scenery. have good day.
No, britedream. I have tried to explain to you where you were wrong, as have tumah and others, but you have blindly refused to see it.

You have done nothing more than twist a verse here and there, with no scholarship claim.

Try reading the whole book, and not just one verse. Only a person who will not look at the entire chapter, reveals one's dishonest agenda and dishonest character.

What amazement at what length you would go through , just to promote Islam. I am sure Muhammad is very proud of you, because he too lack integrity.
 
Last edited:

gnostic

The Lost One
OK, then using that kind of logic. How is Mohammed any more a psycho than say Moses, or Joshua? And (serious question) Have you read the Quran? It is not nearly as bloody as the Old Testament.
What does be bloody have to do with either scriptures. Neither of them provide much facts.

And the Qur'an is more distorted, because Muhammad is incapable of distinguishing one source from another.

And the New Testament is no better, when it comes to distortions.

The gospel of Matthew distorted the passage in Isaiah 7:14 about the virgin birth bringing the new messiah, except that if you read the entire sign, from 714 to 7:17, you would realise it is not talking about any virgin birth or any messiah...unless you think the King of Assyria is the messiah.

Some Christians have the tendencies to twist words from the Old Testament, just as much some Muslims like to use Old Testament and New Testament for their own agenda.
 

ukok102nak

Active Member
~;> as they say
as it is written
:read:
Deuteronomy 18:21
If you say in your heart, "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?"
22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing doesn't follow, nor happen, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken: the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him.

now
who were those prophets from the past who even used the name of the lord to prophesied about things that
the lord never commanded unto them
for example this verses will
tell somethin about those false prophets and even about those false teachers
so as it is written
:read:
2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.
2 Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned.
3 In covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words: whose sentence now from of old does not linger, and their destruction is not asleep


. ... just for a thought
if we may say so ... .


:ty:




godbless
unto all always
 

Britedream

Active Member
Oh, good grief. :facepalm:

Your "ignorance" beggars belief.

You have no idea or no understanding on how to read and analyse literature. What you have done is simply twist a single verse, to promote Muhammad. If anyone is being bias, is you, britedream.

You wrote:



I was following the thumb of rule, as have tumah, and everyone else who debated you and disagreed with your cherry-picking.

And you are wrong, britedream. All meanings to any passage from a passage should be found within the book, and not attempting to modify it as you have.

Verse 16 talk of assembly of Israelites at Mount Horeb, in which the older generation witnessed fire on the mountaintop. The four verses are clearly referring that contemporary Israelites will have a new prophet, a prophet that they should listen to.

As Greased Scotsman have pointed to you, a verse was never meant to be read in isolation, and the interpretation was never meant to be interpreted in isolation.

I was never skirting around, or as you put it "dance around" verse 18. I have been taking the chapter as a whole, or a passage (verses 15 to 18 as a whole), because that's how verse 18 was meant to be understood.

If you have read from Genesis to the book of Joshua, you would have understood that the whole story from Abraham and to Joshua, is all about God fulfilling his original covenant (promise) to Abraham, in Genesis 17. It was the same covenant to be fulfilled along Abraham's line - Isaac and Jacob.

This covenant was to ensure that the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - thus the Israelites or Hebrews, the twelve tribes of Israel-Jacob - would live in the land of the Canaanites, which they would call home.

At the time of Deuteronomy, Moses didn't complete god's covenant in Abraham's covenant; Moses only did his part was to liberate the Israelites out of slavery and out of Egypt, in the "exodus" that lasted 40 years. God-Abraham covenant was only fulfilled when they took Canaan, under a new prophet, Joshua.

You wrote:



God did choose Joshua.

Seriously, britedream. Did you even bother to read Deuteronomy to the end of the book (Deuteronomy 34), with Moses' passing?

Deuteronomy 34 showed that Joshua was chosen among them, which I have highlighted in red:



I am agnostic, not Jewish or Christian, and yet I have better scholarship than you, because I have actually read the books from Genesis to Joshua. I am basing my interpretation solely where it belonged; you on the other hand, have been dancing around verse 18, ignoring the related verses (18:15-17) and ignoring Deuteronomy 34:9, when a new prophet was risen among them.

You keep saying that the new prophet would be risen by God. Well, read Deuteronomy 34:9, britedream.

I have highlighted the above passage in red. Joshua received the "spirit of wisdom" (34:9), another word for "prophethood" for which all prophets supposed receive such "wisdom" from God and they are supposedly spoke on god's behalf, which corresponded to Deuteronomy 18:18 - "...and will put my words in his mouth..."

And the passage "and the children of Israel hearkened unto him, and did as the Lord commanded Moses" (34:9), corresponded with 18:15 a prophet "unto like thee; unto him ye shall hearken", and with 18:18 "like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

And in Joshua 1:1, God did spoke to Joshua:




And God spoke through Joshua, which the Israelites were to follow Joshua's command, as they did with Moses, and just as the newer generation of Israelites followed Moses' command, the Israelites were to follow Joshua:



This passage (Joshua 1:17) corresponds with (Deuteronomy 18:15),

The book of Deuteronomy was written as meant to be Moses' instructions to the Israelites once Moses is gone, and they were to cross the Jordan, and settled in Canaan. It had nothing to with setting another new religion by Muhammad. Nowhere in verse 18 say anything about a new religion.

Deuteronomy 18 is simply parts of those instructions.

I have from the start, when I had joined this argument between you and tumah, have pointed out that you should read and understand the complete chapter in context, including that of verse 18, britedream.

I didn't leave out verse 18, but have repeatedly explain to you that the chapter have been divided into 3 sections:

  1. 18:1-8, the rights given to the Levites, when everyone settled in Canaan.
  2. 18:9-14, what they shouldn't do - follow the Canaanite religious practices or customs.
  3. 18:15-19, and who they should listen to, when they enter Canaan - the new prophet, Moses' successor.
Each section has a common denominator: what are the Israelites are to do when they cross the Jordan, and move into Canaan, their new home. Nothing in those 22 verses indicate that a new religion will start nearly 2000 years later.

Verse 15 to 18 is about listening to their new prophet, when Moses died, that prophet would be the one who would succeed him, and lead them as Moses did for 40 years. These verses are about his successor, whom they should heed. The "unto like thee" or "like him" has nothing to do about a new prophet starting a new religion.

Moses wasn't starting a new religion, because as the Exodus keep repeating, they were to follow the "God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob". Moses was just one of the many parts, who was meant to fulfill Abraham's original covenant (Genesis 17), which was the same covenant given to Isaac (Genesis 17:7, 10, 19) and to Jacob. The covenant was that the land of Canaan would be home to their descendants, the Israelites.

Neither Ishmael, nor Muhammad was ever part of that covenant.

You constant contradict yourself. For instance, you tell tumah to leave out Islam and Judaism:



And yet, the whole idea of you quoting 18:18, is to start a claim that the new prophet will start a new religion, thus Islam.

You lack integrity, when you say one thing, but you do exactly what you have told others not to do.

And you are certainly very incompetent in scholarship. You keep making pitiful excuses and using straw man.

Your understanding is totally wrong, my dear, and you only confirm my post to you, please let me show you:

Your reply to me on the point of discussion:

You wrote earlier "(Words of God to Moses)" that God was speaking to Moses, well you are dead wrong here. Starting with verse 15, I can see it is Moses who were speaking to the people - the Israelites.

You are referring to What I wrote:

Let us see who is forcing his understanding on the verse, the verse 18:18 : (Words of God to Moses)

I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.


I will discuss the parts that we disagree on greatly.

My interpretation : " I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren"; I did not change any thing, I read it as is.

My reply to you was :

Sorry, What you are saying here, has no touch with reality. verse 18:18 is a prophecy where God said " I will raise them a prophet......"; Moses can't say I will raise them a prophet; prophet is only raised by God, you are committing a blasphemy. in the other verses Moses said, Lord will raise them a prophet.

You still insisted on your understanding in the quote above. You can't understand something impossible to understand, in verse 18:18, Moses (pbuh) can't claim that he raises prophets, prophets are only raised by God, because prophethood entails revelation from God.

That proves, you lack the understanding, you claim to have, and confirms my earlier post to you.

Let me repeat my point,"verse 18:18 should be read as it is", because who ever speaks usually means what he says literally, however, if it results in an impossible meaning, then we choose the inner meaning, provided that it is viable and evidenced.

Let us see if my understanding fits the verse perfectly without twisting words.

This is the verse from the Hebrew bible translation, I quoted earlier:

‎יח נָבִיא אָקִים לָהֶם מִקֶּרֶב אֲחֵיהֶם, כָּמוֹךָ; וְנָתַתִּי דְבָרַי, בְּפִיו, וְדִבֶּר אֲלֵיהֶם, אֵת כָּל-אֲשֶׁר אֲצַוֶּנּוּ.

18 I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.


http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0518.htm

So the 12 tribes were with Moses ( pbuh) at that time, and they are addressed as one racial entity. ( Tumah, which you and others have assumed his understanding to be correct, agreed to that). So this part of the verse, there is no problem in understanding it.

" from among their brethren", is the part we differ. I will state how I read it, and why I read it, as it is, then I will state how they read it, and why their understanding, results in impossible meaning to accept. which means, it is wrong.

We know for fact, that Ishmael and Isaac are brethren, God says, they are sons of Abraham.

Then we see God saying, "And he (Ishmael) shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.’ (Genesis 16:12)."

we also see in Genesis, "Genesis 25:9 And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre"

We know for fact there are no planes or cars at that time, so Ishmael must be living near his brethren Isaac, in order for him to be able to attend his father burial.

We see in bible commentary: on verses 25:1-10, "It seems that Abraham had himself brought them together while he lived."

We see from the Jewish encyclopedia, In Rabbinical Literature, "Ishmael then went to Canaan and settled with his father (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.; "Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.). This statement agrees with that of Baba Batra (16a)—that Ishmael became a penitent during the lifetime of Abraham. He who sees Ishmael in a dream will have his prayer answered by God (Ber. 56a)."

So we see, Jewish encyclopedia, bible commentary, and book of genesis, all are attesting to what God said, Ishamel will dwell in the presence of his brethren, to be Issac.

Since the one racial entity, can't be brethren to it's self, you are obligated to read it, as God confirmed it to be for Ishmael and attested to be the case by the sources above.

So my understanding is clear without twisting any word.


let us see the basis for them in reading the verse as it is:

The disagreement, in reading the verse, from their point of view, is that "their brethren" can't mean the Ishmaelite, because he lives far way from Isaac, and he must be living with Katureh sons. this is just an assumption , which is refuted by resources above. Another point, they say the word" brother " , doesn't really mean "brother", which is refuted by the known fact; the sons of one man are brothers. Another point, that the word "them" in " I will raise them"; addressed as one racial entity, must means, " their brethren", which isn't possible; it is a contradiction to a known fact.

So you see, even with their twisting, it is not possible to read it ,as it is , this way at all.
 
Last edited:

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I just love the way Muslims know the Bible better than Jews and Christians :rolleyes:

You know the truth is if they understood the Bible, Muslims wouldn't be Muslims.

Oh well, just another day on RF.
 

Britedream

Active Member
~;> as they say
as it is written
:read:
Deuteronomy 18:21
If you say in your heart, "How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?"
22 When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing doesn't follow, nor happen, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken: the prophet has spoken it presumptuously, you shall not be afraid of him.

now
who were those prophets from the past who even used the name of the lord to prophesied about things that
the lord never commanded unto them
for example this verses will
tell somethin about those false prophets and even about those false teachers
so as it is written
:read:
2 Peter 2:1
But false prophets also arose among the people, as false teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master who bought them, bringing on themselves swift destruction.
2 Many will follow their immoral ways, and as a result, the way of the truth will be maligned.
3 In covetousness they will exploit you with deceptive words: whose sentence now from of old does not linger, and their destruction is not asleep


. ... just for a thought
if we may say so ... .


:ty:




godbless
unto all always

Thank you for being objective, you confirmed, that prophetood entails revelation from God, even before seeing my post.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
Ishmael then went to Canaan and settled with his father (Pirḳe R. El. l.c.; "Sefer ha-Yashar," l.c.). This statement agrees with that of Baba Batra (16a)—that Ishmael became a penitent during the lifetime of Abraham. He who sees Ishmael in a dream will have his prayer answered by God (Ber. 56a)
I'm not going to get involved in this again, because frankly, at this point, I'm so astounded by you, that if I say anymore I'll get banned.

I'm only going to point out that this quote doesn't say what you'd like it to say. For one thing, Pirke d'Rabi Eleizer was a misquote there. I own one and there is one available online and in neither edition is this mentioned in a chapter 30. It is found in Sefer HaYashar. But there it doesn't say that he lived with his father permanently. What it actually says is:

And these are the generations of Ishmael the son of Abraham who was born to Hagar the Egyptian, the maidservant of Sarah, to Abraham. And Ishmael took a wife from the land of Egypt and her name was Riva, she was Marisa. And Riva bore for Ishmael, Nevayoth, Kedar, Adbiel, Mivsam and their sister Basmath. And Ishmael divorced Riva and she went from him and she dwelt in Egypt in the house of her father because she was very evil in the eyes of Ishmael and in the eyes of Abraham his father. And Ishmael took his sons and they went to the land of Canaan to Abraham his father and dwelt there. And afterwards, Ishmael took a wife from the land of Canaan and her name was Malkhith. And she bore for him Mishma', Dumah, Masa, Hadad, Theima, Yitur, Nafish and Kedmah. These are the children of Ishmael and these are their generations, twelve princes to their nations and afterwards, the family of Ishmael spread out. And Ishmael took his sons and all his possessions that he acquired, and the souls of his household and everything he had and they went to live wherever they would find...These are all the families of Ishmael to their generations and they dwelt for themselves in the land that they build for themselves until today.

To say anything else would be a direct contradiction of the verse in Gen. 25:16-18, where it describes the lands that Ishmael and his sons settled in.

If you'd like to go with Pirkei d'Rabi Eliezer's version, then Keturah is another name for Hagar and so all of Keturah's children are Ishmael's full siblings as opposed to Isaac who is only a half-sibling from his father. This version actually makes more sense according to Judaic Law, as there is no paternity for non-Jews. So technically the only siblings Ishmael has, are those from his mother. And that's why when the verse speaks about the fulfillment of the promise that Ishmael would dwell with his brothers, it specifically points to the neighborhood that the children of Keturah lived.
 

Britedream

Active Member
I'm not going to get involved in this again, because frankly, at this point, I'm so astounded by you, that if I say anymore I'll get banned.

I'm only going to point out that this quote doesn't say what you'd like it to say. For one thing, Pirke d'Rabi Eleizer was a misquote there. I own one and there is one available online and in neither edition is this mentioned in a chapter 30. It is found in Sefer HaYashar. But there it doesn't say that he lived with his father permanently. What it actually says is:

And these are the generations of Ishmael the son of Abraham who was born to Hagar the Egyptian, the maidservant of Sarah, to Abraham. And Ishmael took a wife from the land of Egypt and her name was Riva, she was Marisa. And Riva bore for Ishmael, Nevayoth, Kedar, Adbiel, Mivsam and their sister Basmath. And Ishmael divorced Riva and she went from him and she dwelt in Egypt in the house of her father because she was very evil in the eyes of Ishmael and in the eyes of Abraham his father. And Ishmael took his sons and they went to the land of Canaan to Abraham his father and dwelt there. And afterwards, Ishmael took a wife from the land of Canaan and her name was Malkhith. And she bore for him Mishma', Dumah, Masa, Hadad, Theima, Yitur, Nafish and Kedmah. These are the children of Ishmael and these are their generations, twelve princes to their nations and afterwards, the family of Ishmael spread out. And Ishmael took his sons and all his possessions that he acquired, and the souls of his household and everything he had and they went to live wherever they would find...These are all the families of Ishmael to their generations and they dwelt for themselves in the land that they build for themselves until today.

To say anything else would be a direct contradiction of the verse in Gen. 25:16-18, where it describes the lands that Ishmael and his sons settled in.

If you'd like to go with Pirkei d'Rabi Eliezer's version, then Keturah is another name for Hagar and so all of Keturah's children are Ishmael's full siblings as opposed to Isaac who is only a half-sibling from his father. This version actually makes more sense according to Judaic Law, as there is no paternity for non-Jews. So technically the only siblings Ishmael has, are those from his mother. And that's why when the verse speaks about the fulfillment of the promise that Ishmael would dwell with his brothers, it specifically points to the neighborhood that the children of Keturah lived.

This is the link:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8251-ishmael

Please, read the last paragraph under: "Rabbinical Lterature".

Also, please note the site said under its title "The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia"
 

Unification

Well-Known Member
Assalamu Alaikum

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله


Lets read Genesis 17 From Targum: http://targum.info/pj/pjgen12-7.htm


XVII. And Abram was the son of ninety and nine years, and the Lord appeared to Abram, and said to him, I am El Shadai; serve before Me and be perfect (shelim) in thy flesh. And I will set My covenant between My Word and thee, and will multiply thee very greatly. And because Abram was not circumcised, he was not able to stand, but he bowed himself upon his face


The translators of the Bible twisted the meaning of the word "Shelim" according to their lust to avoid the hurting truth.

1. THE WORLD "SHELIM" MEANS SUBMIT TO GOD IN ISLAM.

Source: Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures; translated, with additions, and corrections from the author's Thesaurus and other works ([1857]) ------ Page 830

Link to the book: https://archive.org/details/hebrewchaldeelex00geseuoft

10377009_319871578200339_35306056426021225_n.jpg



2. According to Brown-Driver-Briggs dictionary of the Bible:

The word "Shelim" in Genesis means MUSLIM.

Source: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7999.htm

14183710_552255374961957_5076370033331125131_n.jpg



3. According to Encyclopaedia Judaica, Volume 1 By Fred Skolnik and Michael Berenbaum:

Abraham was muslim !!!

"The very word Islam and the idea contained in it, namely that of complete dedication to God, is connected with the story of Abraham, e.g., Sura 2:125, "When God said to him [Abraham], ‘dedicate yourself to God in islam [aslim]‘, he said, ‘I dedicate myself to the Lord of the Worlds.’" Or (22:77): "This is the religion of your father Abraham. He called you muslimin (Muslims)," i.e., those who dedicate themselves to God.

This expression GOES BACK TO GENESIS 17:1 in the version of Targum *Onkelos, where Abraham is admonished by God to become shelim, and the subsequent definition of a proselyte as one who dedicates himself to his Creator."

Source: http://what-when-how.com/jews-and-judaism/abrabanel-judah-to-abraham-apocalypse-of-jews-and-judaism/


To be continued ..

I've seen human beings of identities as Atheist, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic, Gnostic, and all walks of life having a "peaceful and whole" mind.

Perceiving the intent of this thread, I would perceive that it is anti-Muslim... in better words, of anti-peace and of anti-whole mind.

Thank you, Tumah, for pointing all to the correct interpretation.
 

Tumah

Veteran Member
This is the link:

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8251-ishmael

Please, read the last paragraph under: "Rabbinical Lterature".

Also, please note the site said under its title "The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia"
Yes, I'm aware, and its obviously a mistake in the Encyclopedia. Including the P. dRE. in the citation was a error. It cites it at chapter 30 and the text of chapter 30 is readily available online here:
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/פרקי_דרבי_אליעזר_פרק_ל
There is no mention of it. Nor is it in the edition that I have at home. Either the chapter is incorrect or the citing it as being in that book is incorrect. But there is definitely a mistake there.
It is in the Sefer HaYashar, as I quoted it to you.
 

Britedream

Active Member
Yes, I'm aware, and its obviously a mistake in the Encyclopedia. Including the P. dRE. in the citation was a error. It cites it at chapter 30 and the text of chapter 30 is readily available online here:
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/פרקי_דרבי_אליעזר_פרק_ל
There is no mention of it. Nor is it in the edition that I have at home. Either the chapter is incorrect or the citing it as being in that book is incorrect. But there is definitely a mistake there.
It is in the Sefer HaYashar, as I quoted it to you.

You know very well that wiki sources aren't reliable, please give a link to "The unedited full-text of the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia" translation, that supports your claim.
 
Last edited:
Top