Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up - Religion - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up (3822 Views)
Isaac Amata: "Hillary Clinton Will Win US Presidential Election" / Ishmael Cursed By God? / The Doctrine Of Two Religion: Ishmael And Isaac (2) (3) (4)
| Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba1234: 2:18pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
Who was to be sacrificed by Abraham. Like the Qur’an, the Torah we have today tells us that God tested Abraham with the sacrifice of his son. Unlike the Qur’an, the Torah makes the claim that it was Isaac to be sacrificed and not Ishmael: Then God said, “Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you.” [Genesis 22:2] Not only does the Torah contradict the Qur’an, but it also contradicts itself. Notice the words “your only son”. Why does Genesis specifically refer to Ishmael as Abraham’s progeny in one place and then refer to Isaac as his “only son” in another place? The sacrificial son cannot have been Isaac, for the simple fact that Isaac was Ishmael’s younger brother and was therefore never Abraham’s only son. Such a description can only apply to Ishmael who was 13 years older than Isaac. The claim that it must have originally referred to Ishmael is reinforced when we examine the Hebrew of the text. The Hebrew word ‘yachid’, translated as “only son” in the verse above, actually means “only begotten” according to the Gesenius Hebrew lexicon:B [img]http://manyprophetsonemessage.files./2015/06/genesis-hebrew.png[/img] 1 Like |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba1234: 2:19pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
Clearly Isaac was at no point Abraham’s “only begotten” son, Ishmael is the only one who fits such a description. This understanding of the text is supported by the New Testament, where Paul quotes the verse from Genesis: By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son. [Hebrews 11:17] The Greek word that Paul uses, ‘monogenes’, carries the meaning of “only begotten” according to Strong’s dictionary: 2 Likes |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba1234: 2:22pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
Some Jews and Christians try to resolve this issue by claiming that Ishmael was not a legitimate son of Abraham, an accusation that is demonstrably false from a number of different angles: – The Bible itself bears witness to the fact that Ishmael was Abraham’s “son”: On that very day Abraham took his son Ishmael and all those born in his household or bought with his money, every male in his household, and circumcised them, as God told him. [Genesis 17:23] – Some claim that Ishmael is a “lesser” son than Isaac because his mother, Hagar, was a slave woman. This is not the case according to the Bible: So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. [Genesis 16:3] So the Bible confirms that Hagar was Abraham’s legitimate wife. In fact, if this were not the case then Abraham would be guilty of adultery, a serious accusation indeed! – Moreover the Bible tells us that Ishmael remained the legitimate son of Abraham until even after his death: Then Abraham breathed his last and died at a good old age, an old man and full of years; and he was gathered to his people. His sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah near Mamre, in the field of Ephron son of Zohar the Hittite. [Genesis 25:8-9] Clearly, Ishmael is every bit the legitimate son of Abraham as Isaac is. This suggests that the editors of Genesis altered the story and thus tried to deny Ishmael his rightful place as a legitimate son and heir of Abraham. Now, there is a variant in the manuscript tradition of the Old Testament that makes it even more explicit that Ishmael was to be sacrificed, not Isaac. One of the great Muslim exegetes of the Qur’an, Ibn Kathir (born c. 1300), argued that the Scriptures of the Jews were corrupted by changing the sacrificial son from Ishmael to Isaac. In his book Tafsir Ibn Kathir, he states the following when explaining the meaning of chapter 37 of the Qur’an: “My Lord, grant me [a child] from among the righteous.” So We gave him good tidings of a forbearing boy. [Chapter 37, verses 100-101] (So We gave him the glad tidings of a forbearing boy.) This child was Ishmael, peace be upon him, for he was the first child of whom glad tidings were given to Ibrahim, peace be upon him, and he was older than Ishaq. The Muslims and the People of the Book agree, and indeed it is stated in their Book, that Ishmael, peace be upon him, was born when Ibrahim, peace be upon him, was eighty-six years old, and Isaac was born when Ibrahim was ninety-nine years old. According to their Book, Allah commanded Ibrahim to sacrifice his only son, and in another text it says his firstborn son. But here they falsely inserted the name of Isaac. This is not right because it goes against what their own Scripture says. They inserted the name of Isaac because he is their ancestor, while Ishmael is the ancestor of the Arabs. They were jealous of them, so they added this idea and changed the meaning of the phrase “only son” to mean `the only son who is with you,’ because Ishmael had been taken with his mother to Makkah. But this is a case of falsification and distortion, because the words “only son” cannot be said except in the case of one who has no other son. Furthermore, the firstborn son has a special status that is not shared by subsequent children, so the command to sacrifice him is a more exquisite test. This shows that Ibn Kathir was aware of the variant “firstborn son” in the Old Testament tradition that was in circulation during the 14th century. Such a reading makes it even more explicit that it was Ishmael that was to be sacrificed, as he was 13 years older than Isaac and thus Abraham’s first born. The recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a collection of texts discovered between 1946 and 1956 inside caves near the Dead Sea, prove Ibn Kathir’s claims about the Old Testament. These texts are of great religious significance because they include the earliest known surviving manuscripts of the Old Testament. The scrolls date from approximately 150 BCE – 70 CE. One of the books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls was the Book of Jubilees which is another version of Genesis. This book mentions the words “firstborn son” in relation to the one to be sacrificed by Abraham [1]: And I said unto him: ‘Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything to him; for now I have shown that thou fearest the Lord, and hast not withheld thy son, thy first-born son, from me.’ [18:11] So the claim by Ibn Kathir is remarkable when we consider that he was writing in the 14th century, nearly 7 centuries before the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For him to be aware of such a variant must mean that the Book of Jubilees was being widely circulated and considered a valid book of the Old Testament. In fact even today there are Christians that consider the Book of Jubilees to be canonical; the Ethiopian Orthodox Church for example includes it in their Bible, as do Ethiopian Jews who refer to the book as “The Book of Division”. Another benefit of such variants is that they give us an insight into the nature of the corruption of the Torah. We can see that there was a very subtle tampering in the stories. You can’t rewrite the entire story as you will expose the forgeries; the changes have to be subtle such as swapping the name “Ishmael” for “Isaac”. What is amazing is that the Qur’an alludes to this subtle tampering when it says that those tasked with safeguarding the Torah “distort words from their [proper] usage”: “So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded…” [Chapter 5, verse 13] 3 Likes |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba1234: 2:23pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Nobody: 2:26pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
MuhamMADians don start again |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba1234: 2:30pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
2. The age of Ishmael. There is a story in Genesis where Ishmael is portrayed as a bully to his younger brother Isaac and as a consequence is cast out into the desert along with his mother Hagar. Now this entire episode is odd for a number of reasons. The reaction of Sarah is extreme, for casting Hagar and Ishmael into the barren desert was effectively a death sentence. Even stranger yet is that the details of the story seem to contradict the age of Ishmael. It is clear from the account of Hagar and Ishmael in Genesis 21:14-19 that Ishmael was a young child, perhaps a baby, when they were sent into the desert: Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. Then she went off and sat down about a bowshot away, for she thought, “I cannot watch the boy die.” And as she sat there, she began to sob. God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink. [Genesis 21:14-19] It is possible to calculate the approximate age of Ishmael when he was sent into the desert with his mother. According to Genesis 16:16, Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born: Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael. And according to Genesis 21:5, Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born: Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him. It follows that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when his younger brother Isaac was born. According to Genesis 21:8-10 the desert incident took place after Isaac was weaned: The child grew and was weaned, and on the day Isaac was weaned Abraham held a great feast. But Sarah saw that the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham was mocking, and she said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son…” According to tradition, Isaac was two years old when he was weaned. Three years is the age of weaning mentioned in 2 Chronicles 31:16 and 2 Maccabees 7:27. Thus, it follows that when Hagar and Ishmael were taken away Ishmael was a fully grown teenager, around sixteen or seventeen years old. The problem is that the profile of Ishmael in Genesis 21:14-19 is a small child and not a fully grown teenager: Remember that it is Hagar that carried all the supplies into the desert (Genesis 21:14). If Ishmael were a teenager then surely Abraham would have made him carry at least some of the supplies to lessen the burden on his mother. She put the boy under the bush (Genesis 21:15). Now the original Hebrew used is the word “shalak” which has the meaning ‘to throw, cast, hurl, fling’ acording to Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon. One does not “throw”, “cast”, “hurl” or “fling” a teenager, especially when they are a woman and suffering from the fatigue of a harsh desert environment. Even though it was Ishmael that was crying, God consoles the mother (Genesis 21:17). This could be taken to imply that Ishmael was too young to converse with. She is asked to lift up the boy (Genesis 21:18). Again, one would not expect a woman suffering from the fatigue of a harsh desert environment to be able to lift up a fully grown teenager. Finally, it’s worth mentioning that the Septuagint version of the Torah has the following for Genesis 21:14: And Abraam rose up in the morning and took loaves and a skin of water, and gave them to Agar, and he put the child on her shoulder, and sent her away, and she having departed wandered in the wilderness near the well of the oath. There is simply no way that a woman would be able to carry both the supplies and a fully grown teenager on her shoulders, so the Septuagint is even more explicit in conveying that Ishmael was a young child when he was sent into the desert. Furthermore, the proof of Ishmael’s actual age can be established from the use of Hebrew in the text. The Hebrew word used to describe Ishmael in the desert incident is “yeled”, translated by the NIV as “boy” in Genesis 21:15. Yet within the same chapter, in Genesis 21:8, when the same Hebrew word is used to refer to the 2-year old Isaac, it is translated as “child”. Why is the same Hebrew word translated differently within the same chapter? If there is any lingering doubt as to the real meaning of the word, we should consider that it is almost exclusively used in the Bible to literally describe children, and more specifically, young children or infants. Examples of its usage in the Bible are the following passages: But when she could hide him no longer, she got a papyrus basket for him and coated it with tar and pitch. Then she placed the child in it and put it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile. [Exodus 2:3] Then Naomi took the child in her arms and cared for him. The women living there said, “Naomi has a son!” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David. [Ruth 4:16-17] When we look to the Jewish Rabbinical tradition, it is clear that the word refers to a child, specifically one who is less than 13 years of age. In the commentary on Ecclesiastes 4:13, the famous Rabbi Rashi who authored a comprehensive commentary on the Torah, explains that any boy less than 13-years of age was considered a child, whereas anyone 13-years or older was considered a man [2]: “…why is it called a child? Because it does not enter man until thirteen years.” From all of the internal evidence, it is clear that the outcast Ishmael was a helpless infant rather than an able-bodied teenager, thus the account in Genesis 21 is chronologically wrong. The claim that Ishmael mocked Isaac and that this had anything to do with Hagar’s journey is an obvious fabrication since Isaac was not even born yet when this story occurred for Ishmael was still a baby. The Interpreter’s Bible compares the texts of Genesis 21:14-19 with Genesis 16:1-16 concludes that they are sufficiently different to be inconsistent: “The inclusion in Genesis of both stories so nearly alike and yet sufficiently different to be inconsistent, is one of the many instances of the reluctance of the compilers to sacrifice any of the traditions which has become established in Israel.” It seems that in an effort to keep all the Prophets of God Israelites, even God himself is alleged to have submitted to, and even blessed, the jealous whims of Sarah. Contrast this account of the desert incident from the Torah with the version of the story narrated by Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him): “…(After the Hagar-Sarah hostility), Abraham brought her (Hagar) and her son Ishmael while she was suckling him, to a place near the Ka’ba under a tree on the spot of Zam-zam, at the highest place in the mosque. During those days there was nobody in Mecca, nor was there any water So he made them sit over there and placed near them a leather bag containing some dates, and a small water-skin containing some water, and set out homeward. Ishmael’s mother followed him saying, “O Abraham! Where are you going, leaving us in this valley where there is no person whose company we may enjoy, nor is there anything (to enjoy)?” She repeated that to him many times, but he did not look back at her Then she asked him, “Has Allah ordered you to do so?” He said, “Yes.” She said, “Then He will not neglect us,”… [3] So not only do Islamic sources have the correct age of Ishmael, he is a baby, but the reason for them being cast out into the desert is a test by God, similar to Abraham being commanded to sacrifice his son, rather than the jealous whims of Sarah as put forth by the Torah. Clearly the Biblical account is chronologically flawed and self-contradictory whereas the Islamic tradition is consistent. 1 Like |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Rilwayne001: 2:31pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
The false pen of the scribe was in the hand of the Jews who edited the Books of Moses, as the prophet Jeremiah bewails: How do ye say, We are wise, and the law (the Torah) of the Lord is with us? Lo, certainly in VAIN made he it; the PEN OF THE SCRIBE IS IN VAIN." Jeremiah 8:8 When the Jews are found to convert an Israelite into an Ishmaelite when no motives are involved, then how much easier for them to change the word "you only son Ishmael" to : your only son Isaac!" To confirm the Jewish sickness in the Bible: "Amasa was a man's son, whose name was Ithra an Israelite . . . " 2 Samuel 17:25 Contadicted by ". . . and the father of Amasa was Jether (dame as Ithra) the Ishmaelite." 1 Chronicles 2:17 |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba1234: 2:33pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
Tarnishing the reputation of Ishmael. Open up any Bible and you will see that in Genesis Ishmael is described in rather unflattering terms: He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” [Genesis 16:12] The problem is that this verse does not fit the context of the chapter. We are told that an “angel of the Lord” met Hagar and gave her the good news that God was going to bless her and offspring. Her descendants would be so many that they would be innumerable. Her child would be a boy, and she was to name him Ishmael (meaning “God hears”), because God had indeed listened to Hagar’s sorrowful cries in her affliction. So doesn’t it seem rather odd when the angel abruptly starts talking in a derogatory way about the child he has just named “God hears” and promised to bless greatly? Saying that Ishmael would be a “wild donkey” who would be constantly at odds with everyone else doesn’t sound like a fulfilment of God’s promise to bless Ishmael. But this dilemma of the abrupt switch from ‘blessing’ to ‘cursing’ is solved when it is understood that the Hebrew word used for “wild donkey”, transliterated to pereh or pere’ in English letters, is very similar another Hebrew word, para’, which means “fruitful”. Is there any evidence for this or is it pure speculation? It turns out that the same promise by the angel is repeated later in Genesis 17 and in this chapter it is the Hebrew word para’ (“fruitful”) that is used: 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] So even though it’s a different word in Hebrew it shows that the intended meaning of Genesis 16:12 in the original text was in fact “fruitful” which fits the context of the chapter perfectly. It seems that whoever changed the word from “fruitful” to “wild donkey” in Genesis 16:12 forgot to do so here in Genesis 17:20! Moreover the word ‘fruitful’ appears quite a bit more often in the Masoretic text than the word ‘wild donkey’. In all other cases where the word is read ‘wild donkey’, it clearly actually refers to a wild ass, not a “wild ass man”. The verse in Genesis 16 is the only instance (if it is correct) where ‘wild ass’ is used as an adjective to describe a man rather than an animal. The word ‘fruitful’ obviously fits very nicely in the context of the chapter– it doesn’t ‘slap you in the face’. The angel had just promised Hagar an innumerable number of descendants, so it would be very appropriate to describe him as a ‘fruitful’ man. It is also true that in a context in which Ishmael is to be blessed by God, and is himself a blessing to his mother Hagar, it’s very strange that the angel would abruptly say that this man who is blessed by God will be antagonistic to everyone, and vice versa. The word which is translated “against” (“his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him”) is a single consonant which is added as a prefix to the word “everyone” (or “every man”). Langenscheidt’s dictionary says the following concerning the meaning of this word: “in, at, to, on, among, with, towards; according to, by, because of.” In this context, “with” or “towards” would appear to be the most appropriate translation. The normal idea behind this word would be “for” or “on their side”, etc. Can it ever mean “against”? Yes, it can, if the context is suitable. The same is true of the English word “with”, though. Normally it means positive things. If I say, “I’m with you”, my meaning is obviously “I agree with you” or “I’m on your side”. However, if I say “I’ll fight with you until one of us is dead”, the meaning is very obviously that I’m against you, not ‘for’ you. The word ‘fight’ altered the meaning. Even with the word ‘fight’ inserted, though, the meaning would be ‘for’ or ‘on your side’ if I said something like “I’ll fight with you against your enemies until they’re defeated or we’re dead”. Context is everything, although the normal meaning of ‘with’ would be ‘for’ rather than ‘against’. There is absolutely nothing in the context of the verse in Genesis 16 that would indicate it should have the negative meaning of ‘against’, rather than the more normal positive meaning of ‘with’. The only reason it would be read that way is because of preconceived prejudice against Ishmael. In conclusion, according to the rules of traditional Hebrew grammar and the context of the entire chapter, Genesis 16:12 would be better translated as: “… he will be a fruitful man: his hand shall be with everyone, and every man’s hand shall be with him…” Is there any scriptural backing for such a reading of the verse? It just so happens that this reading can be found in another version of the Torah known as the Samaritan Torah [4]: “He will be fertile of man. His hand will be with everyone. And everyone’s hand will be with him. And he will live among all his brothers.” The Samaritan version of the Torah is written in the Samaritan alphabet which is derived from the paleo-Hebrew alphabet used by the Israelite community prior to the Babylonian captivity. The Samaritans represent a sect of Judaism that split off from the mainstream. There are still a few hundred Samaritans living in modern-day Israel. 4 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Nobody: 2:34pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
Ishilove, pls take dis to d thrash can cum graveyard(islam section) |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Nobody: 2:46pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
OREMUSSANCTUS: |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Rilwayne001: 4:07pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
This is a thread that deserved to be on FP..Very insightful 2 Likes |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Nobody: 6:02pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
The mod should take this non sense to the Islamic section. This is nothing but thrash. Do a similar thing about islam, a ban for causing trouble with be the reward. 1 Like |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by parisbookaddict(f): 7:39pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
tbaba1234: i got bored reading your post... u however made one or two strong points. eg the fact that abraham took a slave for a wife..and birthed ishmael... jews are forbidden to rape or have sex slaves...so he had to marry a slave.. so this got me thinking.... how can u be so clever as to identify this and yet fail to see how this shows that mohammed was a fraud.. Mohammed took sex slaves who he had sex with and never married..he even had sex with married slaves...he raped women captives.. all this goes against the commands of a righteous God who instructed jews to marry women before "knowing" them. once again u aprove mohammed was a false prophet 3 Likes 2 Shares |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 7:51pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
[s] parisbookaddict:[/s] 3 Likes |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 7:55pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
Is there anyone that can provide an intellectual discuss on the issue? There is nothing derogatory about the text written. It is very unlike what you produce on Muslims. 5 Likes |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 7:57pm On Jun 14, 2015 |
Mee234: If you produce a decent piece, it will get a decent response. No matter how critical. If you bring garbage, it will be tossed out. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Medicis(m): 1:57am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba1234:Wow!!! Nice one. But can you please us tell the name of the son Abraham sacrificed using the quran pleassssseeee  ? |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by Nobody: 4:03am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba1234: it just like a king having many sons, but wen it time to choose the crown prince, a son from the queen get choosen or a loved prince by the father gets choosen. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 6:39am On Jun 15, 2015 |
nunamyeong: If a crown prince is a second son, he was never a first born son or the only son. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 6:42am On Jun 15, 2015 |
Medicis: Ishmael was the son to be sacrificed according to Islamic traditions, the hadiths. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by nnofaith: 7:00am On Jun 15, 2015 |
Hmmm! One of the "holy" books lied!
|
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by malvisguy212: 7:11am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba1234:first,the reason Isaac was called Abraham only son is because God did not genuinely recognised ishmael as Abraham son,as bible put it "Isaac was born through the spirit ishmael was born of the flesh" Adam said in The Bible, Genesis 2:23-24, ...This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. In Matthew 19:5 Jesus quoted Adam and said that the two (not 11 as with Muhammed) shall become one flesh. So Abraham violated this doctrine and had a son by Hagar.God showed mercy on Abraham and did not punish him, but because God wanted his plan followed, he told Abraham to start over again and have a son by Sarai, his "ONE FLESH" wife. The quran even recognised Isaac as the ONLY son of Abraham in the prophetic line: Surah 29:27: And (as for Abraham), We bestowed upon him Isaac and (Isaac’s son) Jacob, and caused prophethood and revelation to continue among his offspring. (Asad) Why did ishmael name who is the first born of Abraham omitted? Surah 19:49: So, when he had withdrawn from them and that which they were worshipping beside Allah. We gave him ISAAC AND JACOB. Each of them We made a Prophet. (Pickthall) Surah 21:72-73: And We bestowed upon him ISAAC AND JACOB as a grandson. Each of them We made righteous. And We made them chiefs who guide by Our command, and We inspired in them the doing of good deeds and the right establishment of worship and the giving of alms and they were worshippers of Us (alone). (Pickthall) Once again, we can note that Ishmael is not mention in the above Qur’anic verses, whereas recognition is given to both Isaac and Jacob. Why did not Allah include Ishmael in these verses? If the quran is a complete book, why dint the quran give much details on who is sacrificed? As a matter of facte, it was the bible that give more details how the Arab began as a nation, the quran never provide the details. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by malvisguy212: 7:14am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba12345:so the quran which muslims claimed is the final revelation from Allah who sopposed sanctioned the sacrifice did not mention which son is sacrifice? Nonsense. This debunked your thread. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by malvisguy212: 7:40am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba1234:finely we have a verse from apostle Paul muslims agreed with. ONLY begotten son mean the one Abraham have through the spirit; Galantian 4:23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 7:46am On Jun 15, 2015 |
malvisguy212: Islam is derived from the Quran and the authentic traditions. 1 Like |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 7:49am On Jun 15, 2015 |
malvisguy212: That slave woman was his legitimate wife. Pray tell, how Isaac becomes an only son. Even with this. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by malvisguy212: 7:51am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba12345:the hadith is not a revelation like the quran; Sahih Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 63: Narrated Sahl bin Sad: “The Prophet said, If any book should give much details about Isaac and ishmael, that should be the quran,BUT no , it did not. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 7:54am On Jun 15, 2015 |
malvisguy212: Actually, it is.. the instructions of the prophet are also revelation according to Muslims. That is why so much effort is put towards authentication. 1 Like |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by malvisguy212: 7:58am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba12345:bible make it clear, Isaac was born of a divine promise,after the birth of ishmael, God himself still went ahead to promise sarai son because the son is divine. Ishmael was born of the flesh,this is why the bible say Isaac was his ONLY son. Jesus has brothers but God called him the Only beggoten son in john3:16 |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by malvisguy212: 8:02am On Jun 15, 2015 |
tbaba12345:what do you understand by this word; Narrated Sahl bin Sad? The hadith is not a revelation. |
| Re: Ishmael And Isaac, The Great Cover-up by tbaba12345: 8:07am On Jun 15, 2015 |
malvisguy212: Lol, How many other people do you claim as God's begotten son?? Here Abraham has two sons. |
Vishwakarma Puja Mantra, Puja Vidhi, Vishwakarma Aarti Lyrics / To All Atheists In The House! / Should Christians Support Israel?
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 152 |