Questions to our Jews friends.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sam_777
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Sam_777

Guest
Greeting,

I would like to ask you about the Hebrew words in (Genesis 17:20):

NIV version says this:
“And as for Ishmael, I have heard you: I will surely bless him; I will make him fruitful and will greatly increase his numbers. He will be the father of twelve rulers, and I will make him into a great nation.”

KJV version says this:
“And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.”

For me, the words “I will surely bless him” in NIV do not give the same meaning as in KJV “I have blessed him”, the first one talks about something in the future, while the second one talked about something already happened.

My questions are:
  1. What exactly the Hebrew words tell, is it “I will surely bless him” or “I have blessed him”?
  2. Is “a great nation” in Hebrew indicates the possibility that it could be a religious nation of any sort?
  3. According to the Hebrew words do you think the full sentence could indicate in any way that God could make covenant with Ishmael?
Thanking you in advance for your help in this matter.
 
Genesis 17:20:

As for Ishmael, I have needed you. I hereby bless him. I will make him fertile and exceedingly numerous. He shall be the father of twelve chieftains, and I will make of him a great nation.

Jewish Publication Society, Tanakh, 1985
 
Sam, not to get in the way, but part of the problem here is one of translation. The KJB uses a certain method of writing. Just because the words are past tense “I have blessed him” does not mean that the blessing or the fruits of it have passed. It simply means that God’s blessing is with him, and always was. It is one reason that so many Christians do not use the King James Bible.

Now, your other questions intrigue me. I would say that there is no reason to infer that it has to be a religious nation. It is a large group of people, but I see no reason to say that they are a religious group in the same way that the Isrealites are. I w ould say that this wouid indicate a promise from God, but it may not be a covenant.
 
ralphinal said:
Sam, not to get in the way, but part of the problem here is one of translation. The KJB uses a certain method of writing. Just because the words are past tense “I have blessed him” does not mean that the blessing or the fruits of it have passed. It simply means that God’s blessing is with him, and always was. It is one reason that so many Christians do not use the King James Bible.
Click to expand...
So which Bible version is the most accurate one!
Now, your other questions intrigue me. I would say that there is no reason to infer that it has to be a religious nation. It is a large group of people, but I see no reason to say that they are a religious group in the same way that the Isrealites are. I w ould say that this wouid indicate a promise from God, but it may not be a covenant.
Click to expand...
Because some Muslims claim that a great nation, means a great nation with God (i.e., religious nation), that is why I wanted to hear the opinion from Jews.

However, since there is no covenant with Ishmael, then how Muhammad claimed that he was a prophet! :hmmm:, does (Genesis 17:21) prove that there is no way for any religious man to come from Ishmael’s descendants, can I use (Genesis 17:21) as an OT accurate evidence about the false prophecy of Muhammad.
 
And I’ve listened to you about Ishmael. Here, I’e blessed him, and I’ll make h im fruitful and make him very, very numerous. He’ll father twelve cheiftians, and I’ll make him into a big nation.

A lot of times this verse is used to support the belief that Ishmael is the patriarch of all Arabs. But it really only supports him being the father of the Ishmaelites.

Personally, I don’t see this as proving a covental relationship with Ishmael (for starters, Ishmael is not required to do anything. A covenant works both ways).
 
Which Bible is the most accurate? The one in the origional language. I cannot read Hebrew, Greek, or whatever, so I use a couple of different ones. I do not use the King James Version, but I do use the RSV at times.

I would love to get the Jewish perspective on this. Last night, in Bible study, we were looking at the Letter to the Romans. Paul, being a Jew, makes the statement that even though God’s covenant was with Abraham, it was through Sarah. It was the same with Isaac and Jacob: the covenant was transmitted through one of the women and not all of them. It was similar to the understanding that if your mother is Jewish, you are too. If you mother is not, it does not matter if your father was, you are not genetically Jewish. Would this make sense in your faith?

Assuming that it did, God’s pledge to Abraham was transmitted through Sarah, meaning Isaac. Why? Because God said that it would be Sarah. Now, he did promise to make Ishmael a people, but as Valke pointed out, there was no condition from his part to make it a covenant. More like a gift.
 
This is from the Tanach,the stone edition, Mesorah Heritage Foundation 1998:

But regarding Ishmael I have heard you: I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most increasingly; he will beget twelve pinces and I make him into a great nation
 
Sam_777 said:
So which Bible version is the most accurate one!
Click to expand...
Yeah keep trying to figure that one out…
Because some Muslims claim that a great nation, means a great nation with God (i.e., religious nation), that is why I wanted to hear the opinion from Jews.
Click to expand...
I got this from a Muslim scholar, who got it from a non-Muslim scholar… wish I could remember his name.
However, since there is no covenant with Ishmael, then how Muhammad claimed that he was a prophet! :hmmm:, does (Genesis 17:21) prove that there is no way for any religious man to come from Ishmael’s descendants, can I use (Genesis 17:21) as an OT accurate evidence about the false prophecy of Muhammad.
Click to expand...
Of course there was no covenant with Ishmael. Muslims never say there was. (Not any I know of anyway.) But a covenant doesn’t imply prophethood. For example, there are some non-Jewish prophets mentioned in the Qur’an as well–Shu’aib, Saleh, Hud, and other prophets before Abraham like Adam, Noah, and Enoch. Islam says they are prophets… but no mention of a covenant. God says in the Qur’an that he made a covenant with different groups, like the Jews through Moses by the way, and not through Isaac. Not that it matters.

If you were to say that no religious man could come from outside of Isaac’s line, then you would be suggesting that only the Jews are entitled to blessings from God, and that only the Jews have received prophets and revelation… denying all of mankind, essentially.
 
Sister_Amy said:
If you were to say that no religious man could come from outside of Isaac’s line, then you would be suggesting that only the Jews are entitled to blessings from God, and that only the Jews have received prophets and revelation… denying all of mankind, essentially.
Click to expand...
In reading the Qur’an it’s made pretty clear that before Muhammad (saw) there existed thousands of unnamed prophets which came to all the peoples of the earth, at various times. Islam seems to revere all of them, despite the fact that their names are unknown.

Ibn-Rushd contended that Greco-Roman philosophers were prophets. I’ve heard rumors that some Muslims speculate that Akhenaten (the original monotheist who predated the Judaeo-Christian tradition) may have been a prophet also.
 
LaMar said:
In reading the Qur’an it’s made pretty clear that before Muhammad (saw) there existed thousands of unnamed prophets which came to all the peoples of the earth, at various times. Islam seems to revere all of them, despite the fact that their names are unknown.

Ibn-Rushd contended that Greco-Roman philosophers were prophets. I’ve heard rumors that some Muslims speculate that Akhenaten (the original monotheist who predated the Judaeo-Christian tradition) may have been a prophet also.
Click to expand...
I don’t know anything about Ibn-Rushd. I’ve heard such things that Socrates might have been a prophet, that Buddha might have been a prophet, some people will say that Zoroaster was a prophet and maybe Krishna was a prophet. There is no proof, mind you, either way. Muslims believe that a prophet was sent to every nation–though we don’t know who they were.

Because how can God be Just if He expect people to follow a message they never received? So the message was sent to every people. Not just the Jews.
 
I think you might be interested in the modern lectures of someone like Sh. Hamza Yusuf. Have you seen him on youtube or anything?
 
Sister_Amy said:
Because how can God be Just if He expect people to follow a message they never received? So the message was sent to every people. Not just the Jews.
Click to expand...
How can Allah be Just if He sent his three major prophets and three major revelations to Israel?
 
Sister_Amy said:
If you were to say that no religious man could come from outside of Isaac’s line, then you would be suggesting that only the Jews are entitled to blessings from God, and that only the Jews have received prophets and revelation… denying all of mankind, essentially.
Click to expand...
Allah denies all of mankind by repeatedly saying in the Koran that he preferred Israel to all other nations.
 
Angelos said:
How can Allah be Just if He sent his three major prophets and three major revelations to Israel?
Click to expand...
Al-Qur’an makes it clear that G-d sent prophets to all peoples and nations, all throughout human history. All of these prophets, or their followers, went astray, hence the need to send new prophets at regular intervals.

The revelation to Muhammad (saw) mentions the prophets which are specifically named because the messenger would have been familiar with them. I’m sure G-d could have named all the various Native American, Asian, European and Equatorial African prophets, but they would not have been familiar to the messenger and he would have no way to put them into context. We know about Jesus and Moses because their adherents were known to Muhammad.

In the subtext this seems to include an unwritten warning, that if Muhammad (saw) or Muslims after him went astray, as all the other prophets and their followers did, that G-d would have to continue to send new prophets. Muslims believe that they are faithful to the revelation they have received, and that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets because he delivered the revelation faithfully, and because the Muslims who have kept the revelation have done so without harmful innovations or deletions.
 
LaMar said:
Al-Qur’an makes it clear that G-d sent prophets to all peoples and nations, all throughout human history. All of these prophets, or their followers, went astray, hence the need to send new prophets at regular intervals.

The revelation to Muhammad (saw) mentions the prophets which are specifically named because the messenger would have been familiar with them. I’m sure G-d could have named all the various Native American, Asian, European and Equatorial African prophets, but they would not have been familiar to the messenger and he would have no way to put them into context. We know about Jesus and Moses because their adherents were known to Muhammad.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY!! I have a friend who is a Cherokee convert to Islam, and she told me some fascinating stories from Cherokee “lore” that are soooooooo similar to Islam!
In the subtext this seems to include an unwritten warning, that if Muhammad (saw) or Muslims after him went astray, as all the other prophets and their followers did, that G-d would have to continue to send new prophets. Muslims believe that they are faithful to the revelation they have received, and that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets because he delivered the revelation faithfully, and because the Muslims who have kept the revelation have done so without harmful innovations or deletions.
Click to expand...
Actually God says in the Qur’an that He will preserve the Qur’an and Islam and that there will be no more prophets or revelation–but that if the people stray, then new Muslims will be raised up who will keep up Islam.
 
LaMar said:
Al-Qur’an makes it clear that G-d sent prophets to all peoples and nations, all throughout human history. All of these prophets, or their followers, went astray, hence the need to send new prophets at regular intervals.
Click to expand...
This does not address my post, and fails to answer my question. Try focusing on this: Why 3 prophets to Jews whereas only 1 single prophet to the other nations? According to the Koran, was Israel the only nation to go astray? :rolleyes:
LaMar said:
The revelation to Muhammad (saw) mentions the prophets which are specifically named because the messenger would have been familiar with them. I’m sure G-d could have named all the various Native American, Asian, European and Equatorial African prophets, but they would not have been familiar to the messenger and he would have no way to put them into context. We know about Jesus and Moses because their adherents were known to Muhammad.
Click to expand...
There are a few problems with your statements. They suggest that the content of the Islamic revelation was determined not by Allah, but by Mohammad’s limited human knowledge. Besides, the Koran denies that Mohammad learned about God and other religious figures with the help of Jews and Christians.
LaMar said:
In the subtext this seems to include an unwritten warning, that if Muhammad (saw) or Muslims after him went astray, as all the other prophets and their followers did, that G-d would have to continue to send new prophets. Muslims believe that they are faithful to the revelation they have received, and that Muhammad is the seal of the prophets because he delivered the revelation faithfully, and because the Muslims who have kept the revelation have done so without harmful innovations or deletions.
Click to expand...
This Islamic myth functions to make Mohammad a super-hero while degrading all the former prophets as incompetent and pathetic creatures. It IS a mystery that Allah cannot establish Islam and keep it permanent on earth until Mohammad’s prophetic ministry. Allah is actually such a poor god that fails to preserve his own revelation and is bound to send the same message over and over to no avail.
 
Your perspective on Qur’an is as valid as Amy’s, from my perspective. It’s all about perspective.

Many Christians here seem to feel that correcting false/inaccurate information about Qur’an or Islam reflects some secret allegiance to Islam. That’s not the case. I am convinced that all these traditions are the opium of the people – including the one I was born into – and I’m willing to approach them all on an equal footing.
Angelos said:
This does not address my post, and fails to answer my question. Try focusing on this: Why 3 prophets to Jews whereas only 1 single prophet to the other nations? According to the Koran, was Israel the only nation to go astray? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It was the movement that the prophet was familiar with. G-d spoke to the prophet in a language he could understand, using terms he could comprehend, and analogies that would have been familiar.

Suppose I tried to suggest a new idea on this forum using the example of Osiris Hor of the Heliopolitan cult… Would I be making a point that anyone here could understand? Or would I be better off talking about a Christian saint who embodied the same traits?
There are a few problems with your statements. They suggest that the content of the Islamic revelation was determined not by Allah, but by Mohammad’s limited human knowledge. Besides, the Koran denies that Mohammad learned about God and other religious figures with the help of Jews and Christians.
Click to expand...
My statements suggested no such thing. I was giving the Muslim perspective, as I understand it.

Whether G-d sent Jibril to Muhammad (saw) with a literal message, or whether Muhammad (saw) received the message in some other way (even if, as you suggest, he cooked it up out of whole cloth) it doesn’t change the fact that the message contains allusions to thousands of other prophets who preceded Muhammad (saw). We can argue about the authenticity of the message, but we can’t argue about the content, because it’s freely available.

islam.about.com/od/prophets/p/prophets.htm
This Islamic myth functions to make Mohammad a super-hero while degrading all the former prophets as incompetent and pathetic creatures.
Click to expand...
I’ve read the Qur’an (yeah, the entire thing). My reading doesn’t support this contention, but I do respect your interpretation.

Peace,

LaMar
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top