[size=5pt]

Demmzy15:

99. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!"
103. So when they had both submitted (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham! ...
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right. Qur’an 37

Points You Should Consider

. It is well known that Abraham(P) got his first child in his old days (more than 80 years old). By all means, when he was given the news of his first son, Ishmael(P), the news were great and not only good. It seems reasonable to think that the news of having his second son, Isaac(P) would be equal or less because in the first time the surprise factor has certainly increased his happiness.

. More to the point, using the same argument as the opposition, one can safely say that the sacrificed was described as forbearing and steadfast in the Qur'ân and if we search the whole Qur'ân we will find the name of Ishmael(P) associated to patience and steadfastness and not Isaac(P)!

. Indeed verse 21:85 (in red) reads
"And (remember) Ishmael, Idris, and Zulkifl, all (men) of constancy and patience".

The points DravenCreighton mentioned were very clear, lemme try and explain better!

There are two distinct news contained in the verse, the birth of Isaac happens after the supposed sacrifice was to be done(even the Bible shows that). When you go a little further to verse 112-113 of the same Chapter, you'll find the second news. One happened before Isaac was born and the other was the good news of Isaac's birth.

107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of Our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to themselves.

So Qur’an 37: 99-113 shows 2 distinct favours, here is a full recap. The favor with Ishmael(when Isaac wasn't even born) is in red emphasis and that of Isaac is in blue:

[b]9. He said: "I will go to my Lord! He will surely guide me!
100. "O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!"
101. So We gave him the good news of a forbearing son.
102. Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I have seen in a vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills, one of the steadfast!"
103. So when they had both submitted (to Allah), and he had laid him prostrate on his forehead (for sacrifice),
104. We called out to him "O Abraham! ...
105. "Thou hast already fulfilled the vision!" - thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
106. For this was a clear trial-
107. And We ransomed him with a momentous sacrifice:
108. And We left for him among generations (to come) in later times:
109. "Peace and salutation to Abraham!"
110. Thus indeed do We reward those who do right.
111. For he was one of Our believing Servants.
112. And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous.
113. We blessed him and Isaac: but of their progeny are (some) that do right, and (some) that obviously do wrong, to themselves.[/b]

[/size]

The issue with you guys is that you want to point people to something not clearly in the passage. What is happening is that you are using what you have been told to 'interpret' the passage. You're stamping your preconceived notions on the passage. 

Where in the passage did it say that:

"the birth of Isaac happens after the supposed sacrifice was to be done(even the Bible shows that)."

?
Nowhere!

The Bible account is very clear and everything had to do with Isaac. 

Can't you see that verses 101 and 112 are both referring to "the good news"? The first one talked about the son without mentioning a name. The second now then specifically mentioned the name of the son - Isaac. 

Have you answered all the questions I raised with Draven and come up with a different conclusion? I don't think so.   

So again, like I said:
What should be OBVIOUS to you is that it was 'the righteous son' Abraham asked God and God gave to him that was later asked to be sacrificed! And that son was Isaac!

plainbibletruth:
[size=5pt][/size]
The issue with you guys is that you want to point people to something not clearly in the passage. What is happening is that you are using what you have been told to 'interpret' the passage. You're stamping your preconceived notions on the passage. 

This what I call self denial, you haven't refuted anything. You just keep hanging on a branch which is loose. Even Encyclopedia Judaica states contrary.

plainbibletruth:

Where in the passage did it say that:
?
Nowhere!

Of course I pointed out where it did say so in the Qur’an with tangible and reliable explanations, but you choose to reject because your arguments have crumbled!

plainbibletruth:

The Bible account is very clear and everything had to do with Isaac.

Lie! The Bible's account is very confusing and contradicting, if we revisit it, you'll be shooting yourself on the foot.

plainbibletruth:

Can't you see that verses 101 and 112 are both referring to "the good news"? The first one talked about the son without mentioning a name. The second now then specifically mentioned the name of the son - Isaac. 

Read the verse and understand, I equally agreed to the good news. One was ultimately greater than one, which was Ishmael's birth. The verse 99-102 speaks about Abraham asking for a son in which he was granted. From 103 down to 111 speaks about the supposed sacrifice. Verse 112 shows another good news with 'the conjunction' AND(which means in addition to), so the verse 112 starts with AND(in addition to the other good news)-he was given Isaac. So simple!

plainbibletruth:

Have you answered all the questions I raised with Draven and come up with a different conclusion? I don't think so.

Not my business, I'm here to answer the question the OP raised at the heading of the thread.

plainbibletruth:

So again, like I said:
What should be OBVIOUS to you is that it was 'the righteous son' Abraham asked God and God gave to him that was later asked to be sacrificed! And that son was Isaac!

All Prophets of God are righteous men, Ishmael was righteous and then was given to Abraham. Same as Isaac, the verse 112 talks about Isaac as "one of the Righteous." The son to be sacrificed was Ishmael!

Scholar8200:

The passages above suggests that the promise of Isaac came after Ishmael was born.

Am I right?

Yep!

Scholar8200:

If yes, who (or which seed) was the reference in Genesis 15:4 spoken before the birth of both men:

4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir
Context:Genesis 15:2,3
2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

This cannot refer to Isaac alone but with Ishmael because they were from his two wives. Eliezer Dam-Mesek was Abraham's son from a concubine not from a wife! Eliezer would have been Abraham's heir if he didn't conceive from Hagar or Sarah.

Demmzy15:

Yep!

This cannot refer to Isaac alone but with Ishmael because they were from his two wives. Eliezer Dam-Mesek was Abraham's son from a concubine not from a wife! Eliezer would have been Abraham's heir if he didn't conceive from Hagar or Sarah.

As regards the highlighted, the word God used was 'heir' not 'heirs'. It will be confusion to say heir and mean two people!!! Besides, Eliezer was not Abraham's kid else what was the purpose of Sarah's action out of exasperation in Genesis 16:1 if there was already one?

Scholar8200:
As regards the highlighted, the word God used was 'heir' not 'heirs'. Besides, Eliezer was not Abraham's kid else what was the purpose of Sarah's action out of exasperation in Genesis 16:1 if there was already one?

Corrected, Eliezer wasn't a son but lived with Abraham. His origin is quite strange, some claim he's the son of Nimrod, some say a son of Abraham's concubine 'Masek', etc so that's out!

According to Islam, most Prophets and Messenger came from Isaac's progeny and only one came from Ishmael which is Prophet Muhammad(sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, I could agree with you partially that most of the promise was fulfilled with Isaac's progeny. But that doesn't mean Ishmael was left out, he was also from the bowel of Abraham through his wife Hagar- we find this from Genesis21:13 "And also of the son of the bondwoman......he is thy seed." In fact the God's covenant with Abraham was fulfilled with him!

Genesis 15:4 could refer to Ishmael also because he's a seed of Abraham!

Demmzy15:

Corrected, Eliezer wasn't a son but lived with Abraham. His origin is quite strange, some claim he's the son of Nimrod, some say a son of Abraham's concubine 'Masek', etc so that's out!

According to Islam, most Prophets and Messenger came from Isaac's progeny and only one came from Ishmael which is Prophet Muhammad(sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam, I could agree with you partially that most of the promise was fulfilled with Isaac's progeny. But that doesn't mean Ishmael was left out, he was also from the bowel of Abraham through his wife Hagar- we find this from Genesis21:13 "And also of the son of the bondwoman......he is thy seed." In fact the God's covenant with Abraham was fulfilled with him!

Genesis 15:4 could refer to Ishmael also because he's a seed of Abraham!

Can you justify the highlighted with this:
Genesis 17:19-21 spoken when Ishmael was about 13 years of age:

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

20 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.

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.


and

Genesis 21:12
12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called.


If you can't, we may leave it here.

Scholar8200:


Can you justify the highlighted with this:
Genesis 17:19-21 spoken when Ishmael was about 13 years of age:

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

This why I say the biblical account is very confusing and contradictory.

@emboldened what was the covenant?

[size=5pt]

Demmzy15:

This what I call self denial, you haven't refuted anything. You just keep hanging on a branch which is loose. Even Encyclopedia Judaica states contrary.

Of course I pointed out where it did say so in the Qur’an with tangible and reliable explanations, but you choose to reject because your arguments have crumbled!

Lie! The Bible's account is very confusing and contradicting, if we revisit it, you'll be shooting yourself on the foot.

Read the verse and understand, I equally agreed to the good news. One was ultimately greater than one, which was Ishmael's birth. The verse 99-102 speaks about Abraham asking for a son in which he was granted. From 103 down to 111 speaks about the supposed sacrifice. Verse 112 shows another good news with 'the conjunction' AND(which means in addition to), so the verse 112 starts with AND(in addition to the other good news)-he was given Isaac. So simple!

Not my business, I'm here to answer the question the OP raised at the heading of the thread.

All Prophets of God are righteous men, Ishmael was righteous and then was given to Abraham. Same as Isaac, the verse 112 talks about Isaac as "one of the Righteous." The son to be sacrificed was Ishmael!

[/size]

Demmizy, what is self denial. What haven't I refuted? What loose branch am I hanging on to? What contrary thing did Encyclopedia Judaica state and why do you want to claim it as your authority?

Are you saying the Quran said so or that you used "tangible and reliable explanations" to claim that Quran said so. If it is so plain quoting it again shouldn't be a problem. 

The Bible account is quite clear. The Bible is VERY chronological, UNLIKE the Quran, so following a story or trend in the Bible is more straightforward. So don't even go there. 

The conjunction you now want to use in justifying your claim occurs in a number of places in the chapter so why single it out here?

We are not talking about "All Prophets of God (who) are righteous men" I'm saying the passage specifically talks of 'the righteous son' Abraham asked God and God gave to him that was later asked to be sacrificed! 

If the son was not SPECIAL why would the test come up for Abraham to sacrifice him?

Like I've pointed out:
It is clear from the Quran that Abraham asked for a son. 
It is also clear that Sarah was involved.  
It is clear that the Quran states that: "we gave him.......Isaac" and "we blessed him and Isaac" 
In all these you clearly see Isaac mentioned. 

If Abraham and Sarah are involved who is their son? Obviously Isaac. 

So can we find Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael in ALL these? The simple answer is: No

Did the Quran explicitly state that it cannot be Isaac? The simple answer again is: No.

plainbibletruth:
[s][size=5pt][/size]

Demmizy, what is self denial. What haven't I refuted? What loose branch am I hanging on to? What contrary thing did Encyclopedia Judaica state and why do you want to claim it as your authority?

Are you saying the Quran said so or that you used "tangible and reliable explanations" to claim that Quran said so. If it is so plain quoting it again shouldn't be a problem. 

The Bible account is quite clear. The Bible is VERY chronological, UNLIKE the Quran, so following a story or trend in the Bible is more straightforward. So don't even go there. 

The conjunction you now want to use in justifying your claim occurs in a number of places in the chapter so why single it out here?

We are not talking about "All Prophets of God (who) are righteous men" I'm saying the passage specifically talks of 'the righteous son' Abraham asked God and God gave to him that was later asked to be sacrificed! 

If the son was not SPECIAL why would the test come up for Abraham to sacrifice him?

Like I've pointed out:
It is clear from the Quran that Abraham asked for a son. 
It is also clear that Sarah was involved.  
It is clear that the Quran states that: "we gave him.......Isaac" and "we blessed him and Isaac" 
In all these you clearly see Isaac mentioned. 

If Abraham and Sarah are involved who is their son? Obviously Isaac. 

So can we find Abraham, Hagar and Ishmael in ALL these? The simple answer is: No

Did the Quran explicitly state that it cannot be Isaac? The simple answer again is: No.[/s]

Read my posts well, they're self explanatory.

plainbibletruth:
[size=5pt][/size]

The issue with you guys is that you want to point people to something not clearly in the passage. What is happening is that you are using what you have been told to 'interpret' the passage. You're stamping your preconceived notions on the passage. 

Where in the passage did it say that:
?
Nowhere!

The Bible account is very clear and everything had to do with Isaac. 

Can't you see that verses 101 and 112 are both referring to "the good news"? The first one talked about the son without mentioning a name. The second now then specifically mentioned the name of the son - Isaac. 

Have you answered all the questions I raised with Draven and come up with a different conclusion? I don't think so.   

So again, like I said:
What should be OBVIOUS to you is that it was 'the righteous son' Abraham asked God and God gave to him that was later asked to be sacrificed! And that son was Isaac!

Lol! I think everything there is quite clear for every sane person to see. Moreover, those who support that the two news are actually the same show their incompetence with the Qur'ânic style. Such a repetition cannot be imagined nor accepted by anyone who studied the Qur'ân, God's Final Book. Yo should study the Qur'ân thoroughly before calling upon ghosts that will frighten nobody but themselves. Indeed, the Biblical version of the story: "sacrifice your only son, Isaac" or "sacrifice your firstborn son, Isaac" is an enigma they must live with.

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


How can you even deny how clear everything was there?

Quran 2:7
Sahih International
Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.

Quran 2:171
Yusuf Ali: The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat-herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom.

Demmzy15:

This why I say the biblical account is very confusing and contradictory.

@emboldened what was the covenant?

Kindly read Genesis 17.

Scholar8200:

The passages above suggests that the promise of Isaac came after Ishmael was born.

Am I right? If yes, who (or which seed) was the reference in Genesis 15:4 spoken before the birth of both men:

4 And, behold, the word of the Lord came unto him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir

Context:Genesis 15:2,3
2 And Abram said, Lord God, what wilt thou give me, seeing I go childless, and the steward of my house is this Eliezer of Damascus? 3 And Abram said, Behold, to me thou hast given no seed: and, lo, one born in my house is mine heir.

Scholar, I'm just glad you're not as blind as the clown who keeps trying to interpret the Quran for us, I'm happy you've admitted that the Quran clearly speaks of two promises there. Plainbibletruth, please, stop embarrassing yourself.

The biblical story of Ishmael and Isaac is one of the most contradictory stories I've ever read in my life, proof that someone is trying to conceal something.

Quran 3:71
Sahih International
O People of the Scripture (JEWS and Christians), why do you confuse the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know [it]?

Quran 17:81
Sahih International
And say, "Truth has come, and falsehood has departed. Indeed is falsehood, [by nature], ever bound to depart."

Scholar8200:
Kindly read Genesis 17.

God's covenant was 'circumcision' and this was done to Ishmael and other men in the household of Abraham, many years before Isaac was even born!

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."
Genesis 17:10-11

So Abraham immediately circumcises himself and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs (Genesis 17:23), thus establishing God's covenant with Ishmael.

You should know that this covenant was applied to Isaac but it was fulfilled through Ishmael!

DravenCreighton:
The biblical story of Ishmael and Isaac is one of the most contradictory stories I've ever read in my life, proof that someone is trying to conceal something.

Quran 3:71
Sahih International
O People of the Scripture (JEWS and Christians), why do you confuse the truth with falsehood and conceal the truth while you know [it]?

Quran 8:8
Sahih International
That He should establish the truth and abolish falsehood, even if the criminals disliked it.

I believe it is clear enough! Why would God test Abraham with Ishmael and give all the blessings of Abraham's obedience to Isaac while Ishmael is sent packing (with a blessing not different from the generic declaration on all creatures in Genesis 1 after creation) ?

Especially when God had already known and purposed that Isaac was the child of promise?

Scholar8200:
I believe it is clear enough! Why would God test Abraham with Ishmael and give all the blessings of Abraham's obedience to Isaac while Ishmael is sent packing (with a blessing not different from the generic declaration on all creatures in Genesis 1 after creation) ?

Ishmael and his mother were not sent away because of Isaac, this is another interpolation in the Bible which tries to conceal the truth. No doubt Isaac was blessed, but turning things around because of jealousy could be dangerous. The truth would always prevail, plainbibletruth, thanks for creating this thread. I respect you and scholar because of your mature responses. May God bless!

Demmzy15:

Ishmael and his mother were not sent away because of Isaac, this is another interpolation in the Bible which tries to conceal the truth. No doubt Isaac was blessed, but turning things around because of jealousy could be dangerous. The truth would always prevail, plainbibletruth, thanks for creating this thread. I respect you and scholar because of your mature responses. May God bless!

No, scholar8200 is mature in his responses, plainbibletruth is a clown, hell bent on trying to teach muslims how the Quran works. Looool!

Demmzy15:

God's covenant was 'circumcision' and this was done to Ishmael and other men in the household of Abraham, many years before Isaac was even born!

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.
And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."
Genesis 17:10-11

So Abraham immediately circumcises himself and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs (Genesis 17:23), thus establishing God's covenant with Ishmael.

You should know that this covenant was applied to Isaac but it was fulfilled through Ishmael!

As per the highlighted, Isaac was alive (and also circumcised after birth) so that is not possible. That the slaves were also circumcised does not mean they were the primary party to the covenant; Abraham was. Besides, your assertion contradicts God's declaration:

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

20 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.

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Let's use an acid test here; was the passage below fulfilled on Isaac's or Ishmael's descendants? If Isaac's then shall we not safely and logically conclude that Verse 4 also refers to Isaac?

Genesis 15:13,14
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

DravenCreighton:


No, scholar8200 is mature in his responses, plainbibletruth is a clown, hell bent on trying to teach muslims how the Quran works. Looool!

At least he's better than jcross19, Jagoon, basilico, Ifeann oremusacttus, anas et-al. These guys gat no respect!

Scholar8200:
I believe it is clear enough! Why would God test Abraham with Ishmael and give all the blessings of Abraham's obedience to Isaac while Ishmael is sent packing (with a blessing not different from the generic declaration on all creatures in Genesis 1 after creation) ?

Especially when God had already known and purposed that Isaac was the child of promise?

No mate, you're trying to merge the bible into the Quran here, we were speaking of the version of the story in the Quran, not the bible. You believe Isaac is the only child of promise. Think, why would God bless Abraham with Ishmael just to utterly abandon him? What sort of father even in the modern world does this?

Demmzy15:

At least he's better than jcross19, Jagoon, basilico, Ifeann oremusacttus, anas et-al. These guys gat no respect!

Yeah, but these people are just trolls. At least when I'm debating with some one, when I present clear evidences to him, I expect him to admit he's wrong, is that too much to ask? Not dancing from one end to another like a, well....clown.

DravenCreighton:


Yeah, but these people are just trolls. At least when I'm debating with some one, when I present clear evidences to him, I expect him to admit he's wrong, is that too much to ask? Not dancing from one end to another like a, well....clown.

The only clear evidence that we can derive from your quoran is that mohamed is the father of and inspiration behind islamic terrorism

Scholar8200:

As per the highlighted, Isaac was alive (and also circumcised after birth) so that is not possible. That the slaves were also circumcised does not mean they were the primary party to the covenant; Abraham was. Besides, your assertion contradicts God's declaration:

The time Ishmael was circumcised, Isaac was not born. Ishmael is older than Isaac with 13years. So Ishmael is an offspring of Abraham, the covenant was fulfilled with him because he's the FIRSTBORN.

Scholar8200:

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

20 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.

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

God's covenant was with the "seed" of Abraham (pbuh), among whom was Ishmael.

Scholar8200:

Let's use an acid test here; was the passage below fulfilled on Isaac's or Ishmael's descendants? If Isaac's then shall we not safely and logically conclude that Verse 4 also refers to Isaac?

Both are the offsprings of Abraham and it applies to their descendants. But Isaac's descendants had more Prophets then Ishmael.

Genesis 17:21 and Genesis 21:21 do not exclude Ishmael from God's covenant as some claim. The example of this is one who says: "I love my parents" and then a few days later says "I love my mother." Does this mean that he does not love his father? Since God had already consecrated his covenant between Abraham and his son Ishmael years before the birth of Isaac, and Abraham had already circumcised Ishmael so that he might receive God's covenant, therefore, it was necessary to reaffirm that Isaac was not left out of this covenant even though it was established after the birth of Ishmael but before his own birth.

Scholar8200:

Genesis 15:13,14
13 And he said unto Abram, Know of a surety that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs, and shall serve them; and they shall afflict them four hundred years; 14 and also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance.

Jagoon:


The only clear evidence that we can derive from your quoran is that mohamed is the father of and inspiration behind islamic terrorism

Lol! Why do you like throwing the word terrorist around? This troll was going around nl jubilating and and shouting that I deactivated my account because I was exposed as a wannabe terrorist I am indeed a terrorist, as every muslim should be, but an Islamic fundamentalist terrorizes the unjust, not the innocent. I wonder why a peaceful muslim who just prays and glorifies Allah is never called an extremist, only when a person carries a pkp pecheneng will theY start shouting extremist. Smh

DravenCreighton:



No mate, you're trying to merge the bible into the Quran here, we were speaking of the version of the story in the Quran, not the bible. You believe Isaac is the only child of promise. Think, why would God bless Abraham with Ishmael just to utterly abandon him? What sort of father even in the modern world does this?

Ishmael was not the child born by promise. God did not utterly abandon Ishmael; he was blessed thus:
Genesis 17:20,21
20 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.

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

But the covenant was to be perpetuated through the child of promise.

Scholar8200:
Ishmael was not the child born by promise. God did not utterly abandon Ishmael; he was blessed thus:
Genesis 17:20,21
20 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.

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

But the covenant was to be perpetuated through the child of promise.

No, but his biological father did, atleast according to christians.

Scholar8200:
Ishmael was not the child born by promise. God did not utterly abandon Ishmael; he was blessed thus:
Genesis 17:20,21
20 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.

21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

But the covenant was to be perpetuated through the child of promise.

Ishmael included!

Demmzy15:

The time Ishmael was circumcised, Isaac was not born. Ishmael is older than Isaac with 13years. So Ishmael is an offspring of Abraham, the covenant was fulfilled with him because he's the FIRSTBORN.

If you appreciate God's stance towards the marital covenant, you will understand why Isaac remained the Child of Promise and Judah was the direct patriarch of the Seed - Jesus Christ - in Whom all the Nations of the World was to be blessed.

God's covenant was with the "seed" of Abraham (pbuh), among whom was Ishmael. Both are the offsprings of Abraham and it applies to their descendants. But Isaac's descendants had more Prophets then Ishmael.

So also was Midian, Jokshan, Medan, Zimran etc all who were offsprings of Abraham. The reference through whom the covenant was to be perpetuated therefore had to be specified!

Genesis 17:21 and Genesis 21:21 do not exclude Ishmael from God's covenant as some claim. The example of this is one who says: "I love my parents" and then a few days later says "I love my mother." Does this mean that he does not love his father? Since God had already consecrated his covenant between Abraham and his son Ishmael years before the birth of Isaac, and Abraham had already circumcised Ishmael so that he might receive God's covenant, therefore, it was necessary to reaffirm that Isaac was not left out of this covenant even though it was established after the birth of Ishmael but before his own birth.

Still you appear to be denying the express declaration in Genesis 17:21
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Demmzy15:

The time Ishmael was circumcised, Isaac was not born. Ishmael is older than Isaac with 13years. So Ishmael is an offspring of Abraham, the covenant was fulfilled with him because he's the FIRSTBORN.

If you appreciate God's stance towards the marital covenant, you will understand why Isaac remained the Child of Promise and Judah was the direct patriarch of the Seed - Jesus Christ - in Whom all the Nations of the World was to be blessed.

God's covenant was with the "seed" of Abraham (pbuh), among whom was Ishmael. Both are the offsprings of Abraham and it applies to their descendants. But Isaac's descendants had more Prophets then Ishmael.

So also was Midian, Jokshan, Medan, Zimran etc all who were offsprings of Abraham and must have been circumcised. The reference through whom the covenant was to be perpetuated therefore had to be specified!

Genesis 17:21 and Genesis 21:21 do not exclude Ishmael from God's covenant as some claim. The example of this is one who says: "I love my parents" and then a few days later says "I love my mother." Does this mean that he does not love his father? Since God had already consecrated his covenant between Abraham and his son Ishmael years before the birth of Isaac, and Abraham had already circumcised Ishmael so that he might receive God's covenant, therefore, it was necessary to reaffirm that Isaac was not left out of this covenant even though it was established after the birth of Ishmael but before his own birth.

Still you appear to be denying/ignoring the express declaration in Genesis 17:21
21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Scholar8200:
If you appreciate God's stance towards the marital covenant, you will understand why Isaac remained the Child of Promise and Judah was the direct patriarch of the Seed - Jesus Christ - in Whom all the Nations of the World was to be blessed.

And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. Genesis 16

I could simply end here, since the verse itself says Abraham married Hagar! But I will go further, since you will still not be satisfied with this and come up with bogus interpretations. Therefore I shall quote a Biblical scholar, and Bible commentary on this very verse.



The Adam Clarke Commentary

Verse 1. She had a handmaid, an Egyptian
As Hagar was an Egyptian, St. Chrysostom's conjecture is very probable. that she was one of those female slaves which Pharaoh gave to Abram when he sojourned in Egypt; see Genesis 12:16. Her name hagar signifies a stranger or sojourner, and it is likely she got this name in the family of Abram, as the word is pure Hebrew.

Verse 2. Go in unto my maid.
It must not be forgotten that female slaves constituted a part of the private patrimony or possessions of a wife, and that she had a right, according to the usages of those times, to dispose of them as she pleased, the husband having no authority in the case.

I may obtain children by her.
The slave being the absolute property of the mistress, not only her person, but the fruits of her labour, with all her children, were her owner's property also.

The children, therefore, which were born of the slave, were considered as the children of the mistress. It was on this ground that Sarai gave her slave to Abram; and we find, what must necessarily be the consequence in all cases of polygamy, that strifes and contentions took place.

Verse 3. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar-and gave her to her husband-to be his wife.
There are instances of Hindoo women, when barren, consenting to their husbands marrying a second wife for the sake of children; and second marriages on this account, without consent, are very common.-Ward

Like I said, someone is trying to conceal something,

DravenCreighton:


And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife. Genesis 16

I could simply end here, since the verse itself says Abraham married Hagar! But I will go further, since you will still not be satisfied with this and come up with bogus interpretations. Therefore I shall quote a Biblical scholar, and Bible commentary on this very verse.



The Adam Clarke Commentary

Verse 1. She had a handmaid, an Egyptian
As Hagar was an Egyptian, St. Chrysostom's conjecture is very probable. that she was one of those female slaves which Pharaoh gave to Abram when he sojourned in Egypt; see Genesis 12:16. Her name hagar signifies a stranger or sojourner, and it is likely she got this name in the family of Abram, as the word is pure Hebrew.

Verse 2. Go in unto my maid.
It must not be forgotten that female slaves constituted a part of the private patrimony or possessions of a wife, and that she had a right, according to the usages of those times, to dispose of them as she pleased, the husband having no authority in the case.

I may obtain children by her.
The slave being the absolute property of the mistress, not only her person, but the fruits of her labour, with all her children, were her owner's property also.

The children, therefore, which were born of the slave, were considered as the children of the mistress. It was on this ground that Sarai gave her slave to Abram; and we find, what must necessarily be the consequence in all cases of polygamy, that strifes and contentions took place.

Verse 3. And Sarai, Abram's wife, took Hagar-and gave her to her husband-to be his wife.
There are instances of Hindoo women, when barren, consenting to their husbands marrying a second wife for the sake of children; and second marriages on this account, without consent, are very common.-Ward

Like I said, someone is trying to conceal something,

The highlighted (1st) alone already shows that Hagar was Sarah's bondwoman hence there's nothing strange if she was sent away.

Yes, second marriages were indeed common but the highlighted superseded that privilege; meaning the mistress could end such union! Else why did every one including Hagar refer to herself as a maid even after Ishmael was born?

Genesis 16:6,9

6 But Abram said to Sarai, See here, your maid is in your hands and power; do as you please with her. And when Sarai dealt severely with her, humbling and afflicting her, she [Hagar] fled from her.
7 But [a]the Angel of the Lord found her by a spring of water in the wilderness on the road to Shur.
8 And He said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, where did you come from, and where are you intending to go? And she said, I am running away from my mistress Sarai.
9 The Angel of the Lord said to her, Go back to your mistress and [humbly] submit to her control.

Meanwhile, my reference to marital covenant was as it concerns the first and legal wife according to God's purpose from the beginning:

Malachi 2:14
14 Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.

Demmzy15:

Ishmael included!

But contradicting Genesis 17:21
But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, which Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

Else would you make a case for Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak and Shuah? They were Abraham's seed too and they must have been circumcised! God is not the author of confusion!

Genesis 15:4 speaks of a heir- single

Genesis 15: 13 gives a prophecy of what will be experienced by the heir's descendants. No such happened to Ishmael's descendants!Why? he was not the reference!!!