Abraham sacrifice his son (ishmael or isaac)

[Dingbat]

but God didnt command Abraham to bear a child by Hagar, Sarah did. And after Sarah miraculously conceived, she wanted Ishmael gone and God agreed with her.

So Ishmael was illegitimate in terms of being the firstborn and evidence of that is the fact that God did not pass on the right of firstborn to Ishmael....God gave that right to Isaac. He was the child of promise who was to become the first ancestor of the nation that God would adopt as his own for the purpose of producing the messiah to the world....the messiah being Jesus.

No he was not I suggest you reread your Torah since you have misquoted two scriptures at this point both the Torah and the Qur'an. Ishmael never lost his birthright nor is that ever indicated in the Torah in fact God basically commands the sending away of Ishmael due to the jealousy of Sarah. Ishmael was never disowned but his birthright was never that of Isaac. Again I suggest you reread the Torah and get a copy of the Qur'an before making such odd assertions.

You are either calling God a liar or an idiot. Why would he give a birthright to Ishmael and give Sarah Isaac if he was just going to change his mind about agreements made to the Prophet? Are you saying God lied to the Prophet? Or that God changes his mind repeatedly and thus his promises are worthless?

 

[Pegg]

No he was not I suggest you reread your Torah since you have misquoted two scriptures at this point both the Torah and the Qur'an. Ishmael never lost his birthright nor is that ever indicated in the Torah in fact God basically commands the sending away of Ishmael due to the jealousy of Sarah. Ishmael was never disowned but his birthright was never that of Isaac. Again I suggest you reread the Torah and get a copy of the Qur'an before making such odd assertions.

You are either calling God a liar or an idiot. Why would he give a birthright to Ishmael and give Sarah Isaac if he was just going to change his mind about agreements made to the Prophet? Are you saying God lied to the Prophet? Or that God changes his mind repeatedly and thus his promises are worthless?

Genesis 21:8 Now the child kept growing and came to be weaned; and Abraham then prepared a big feast on the day of Isaac’s being weaned. 9 And Sarah kept noticing the son of Ha′gar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, poking fun. 10 So she began to say to Abraham: “Drive out this slave girl and her son, for the son of this slave girl is not going to be an heir with my son, with Isaac!” 11 But the thing proved to be very displeasing to Abraham as regards his son. 12 Then God said to Abraham: “Do not let anything that Sarah keeps saying to you be displeasing to you about the boy and about your slave girl. Listen to her voice, because it is by means of Isaac that what will be called your seed will be

Gods blessing was obviously on Isaac, not Ishmael. "it is by means of Isaac that what will be called your seed will be"
The right of firstborn in a patriarchal society always rested on the firstborn son. But in this case, Abraham is told that his firstborn (Ishmael) would not be his predecessor...rather Isaac would be the one to become the next family head or his 'seed'.

Im not sure how you are reading anything different, but perhaps you take the qurans view of the situation as the true account whereas i take the Bibles account as the true situation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Ishmael was an illegitimate son and for that reason God had him sent away.

 

[Sleeppy]

You do that a lot, don't you? What's the point?

 

[Dingbat]

Pretty much. I don't even feel like digging out quotes from the Torah at this point what a waste of time.

 

[TheKnight]

You do that a lot, don't you? What's the point?

It demonstrates frustration at the very obvious lack of knowledge on the part of the person quoted. Because the Bible is VERY clear about why Ishmael and Hagar were sent away.

It had nothing to do with Ishmael's legitimacy.

 

[Sleeppy]

It demonstrates frustration at the very obvious lack of knowledge on the part of the person quoted. Because the Bible is VERY clear about why Ishmael and Hagar were sent away.

It had nothing to do with Ishmael's legitimacy.

But why even demonstrate frustration? Why is it necessary? What purpose does it serve?

 

[Tarheeler]

But why even demonstrate frustration? Why is it necessary? What purpose does it serve?

It serves the same purpose as everything else here, includng your objection to it: it voices an opinion.

 

[Sleeppy]

It serves the same purpose as everything else here, includng your objection to it: it voices an opinion.

Why not voice an opinion that actually helps? That more than likely will continue the frustration.

 

[Tarheeler]

Why not voice an opinion that actually helps? That more than likely will continue the frustration.

I could ask you the same question, as your posts have as much value as Jay's.
Do you honestly believe that your criticism will somehow affect a change?

Some people post here to learn, some to teach, some to socialize, some to troll, or flame, or bait, and some are here to ask pointless questions, and some like to post obnoxious smilies.


And with that, I think we've pulled this thread far enough off topic discussing Jay's facepalm obsession.

 

[javajo]

Here is my belief/recollection: Yes the Koran says it was Ishmael, and the oldest manuscript we had from the Bible was from around the 11th century, so it could not be disproved. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls which are from around the 1st century, some 600 years before the Koran, were discovered and in them it was indeed, Isaac who was sacrificed.

 

[Sleeppy]

I could ask you the same question, as your posts have as much value as Jay's.
Do you honestly believe that your criticism will somehow affect a change?

Some people post here to learn, some to teach, some to socialize, some to troll, or flame, or bait, and some are here to ask pointless questions, and some like to post obnoxious smilies.


And with that, I think we've pulled this thread far enough off topic discussing Jay's facepalm obsession.

I was honestly hoping it would. But back to the topic, then.

 

[Dingbat]

Here is my belief/recollection: Yes the Koran says it was Ishmael, and the oldest manuscript we had from the Bible was from around the 11th century, so it could not be disproved. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls which are from around the 1st century, some 600 years before the Koran, were discovered and in them it was indeed, Isaac who was sacrificed.

Actually the Qur'an does not say it is Ishmael that was proposed by Islamic Scholars far latter. The Qur'an never states who the son is nor is it really important in the Grand Scheme of things but that is hardly the point of the narrative. Why do people not just read the Qur'an instead of just making up claims? It would be a far better use of your time.

 

[javajo]

Actually the Qur'an does not say it is Ishmael that was proposed by Islamic Scholars far latter. The Qur'an never states who the son is nor is it really important in the Grand Scheme of things but that is hardly the point of the narrative. Why do people not just read the Qur'an instead of just making up claims? It would be a far better use of your time.

Hi, you are right. No it does not say it was Ishmael outright, but (I believe) Muslims believe it was Ishmael and their scholars infer that the Qur'an teaches it was him. Nonetheless, it is taught in Islam that Ishmael was sacrificed, but the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are much older than Islam and Mohammad, say it was Isaac. That is historical evidence, in my belief. Thanks.

 

[Dingbat]

Hi, you are right. No it does not say it was Ishmael outright, but (I believe) Muslims believe it was Ishmael and their scholars infer that the Qur'an teaches it was him. Nonetheless, it is taught in Islam that Ishmael was sacrificed, but the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are much older than Islam and Mohammad, say it was Isaac. That is historical evidence, in my belief. Thanks.

Oh I agree with what you are saying but it is the idea of scholars not that of the Qur'an. The reason scholars believe it is Ishmael is due to the wording in the idea of it being his only son and that would only fit Ishmael at the time. Regardless of who it is doesn't really matter to me though as the story has little to do with the son and everything to do with Abraham.

 

[arthra]

You know I think it's interesting that Ishmael is viewed in such negative terms because the verses in scripture actually accord Ishmael a high station...

How many personages in the Bible were named by the Angel of the Lord?

See Genesis 16:11

"You shall call him Ishmael... " Ishmael means "God has heard".

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

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


Also how many persons did God Himself promise to prosper...note that when Abraham asked God to remember Ishmael, God promised He would make Him a mighty nation... Genesis 17:21

Yes I think it's true that the descent of prophets came through Isaac for Israel..but God also made a Covenant with Abraham and His descendents. See Genesis 17:11 and that would include His sons from Keturah His third wife.

The Ishmaelites were related to the Midianites that Moses united with... after His exile from Egypt. So Jethro his father-in-law was more a helper to Moses than any kind of hindrance.

 

[javajo]

Oh I agree with what you are saying but it is the idea of scholars not that of the Qur'an. The reason scholars believe it is Ishmael is due to the wording in the idea of it being his only son and that would only fit Ishmael at the time. Regardless of who it is doesn't really matter to me though as the story has little to do with the son and everything to do with Abraham.

Hi, cool. Here is some of what I believe: There is disagreement even among Muslim scholars as to who it was. The only son idea can be argued also that Isaac was the promised son and was miraculously conceived both of which the Qur'an agrees to, and God promised that Isaac's descendents would inherit the land, which Ishmael was not promised, although he was promised other things. But these three would show Isaac was the son of promise, or one and only son. The Bible names Isaac as the one, the Qur'an does not. Also, there is a reason beyond the story. Jesus said Abraham would see my day and rejoice. I believe Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his own son is a picture of God sacrificing his own Son on the same mountains. Abraham told his son that God will provide a lamb, and John, when he saw Jesus said, "Behold the lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!" God stopped Abraham from sacrificing his son but did not withhold his only Son for us:

"For God commendeth his love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8 R.S.V.).

"... For God is love. In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins." (1 John 4:8b-10 R.S.V.).
​

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16 R.S.V.).


Some ideas from and for more reading see: Abraham and the Child of Sacrifice - Isaac or Ishmael?

​

 

[Zardoz]

Umm... let's all remember the rules, especially rule #8....

Actually, both sons were with Avraham, and he did reply to G-d "Two sons have I"

Neither was sacrificed as it turned out, so the story is really much more about Avraham; but it's still a very hard event to understand, in any case.

Peace

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Hi, you are right. No it does not say it was Ishmael outright, but (I believe) Muslims believe it was Ishmael and their scholars infer that the Qur'an teaches it was him.

I have also heard from informed Muslims that the ambiguity is intentional and valuable.

... the Dead Sea Scrolls, which are much older than Islam and Mohammad, say it was Isaac. That is historical evidence, in my belief.

Two points:

1. The Torah is likewise "much older than Islam and Mohammad."
2. I am aware of absolutely nothing in the DDS that adds to the Genesis account.

 

[javajo]

I have also heard from informed Muslims that the ambiguity is intentional and valuable.

Two points:

1. The Torah is likewise "much older than Islam and Mohammad."
2. I am aware of absolutely nothing in the DDS that adds to the Genesis account.

The Dead Sea Scrolls contain the story of Abraham and explain why God asked him to sacrifice Isaac. They also show how well the text was copied by the scribes. I have to trust the Torah.

Some points from the Bible and Quran:

The Bible mentions clearly that Isaac was the sacrificial son, whereas the Quran does not mention the name of the child;
The Bible mentions that the site of the sacrifice, whereas the Quran does not give a slightest hint as to where this sacrifice was to take place;
The Bible says in Genesis 17:15-21 that Isaac was the only promised child of Abraham and the Quran agrees with this fact in Suras 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30;
The Bible reveals in Genesis 17:15-17, 18:9-15, 21:1-7; and Galatians 4:28-29 that Isaac was to be born miraculously to a barren mother and an aged father and the Quran also agrees with this in Suras 11:69-73, 51:24-30, but comparatively Ishmael was born normally without any miracle;
And finally we see in Surah 29: 27 that prophethood and scripture was to be established in the seed of Isaac and not Ishmael.

Read more: What is the Proof That It Was Isaac and Not Ishmael Who Was Offered by Abraham? | Relijournal
​