Who was offered for sacrifice by Abraham- Isaac or Ishmael?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kouyate42
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kouyate42

Guest
OK, a question which is bugging me.

Islamic belief holds that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who Abraham bound and put on the sacrificial altar on the command of Allah.

But the Bible holds Isaac to be the one Abraham offered.

My problem with this is from the Bible: Ishma’il was born first, and so was the eldest of the two half-brothers. However the Bible states this:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 22:2[/BIBLEDRB]

This passage holds Isaac to to the only son, which cannot be correct according to the Biblical narrative.

So. is the Bible wrong?
 
I have a basic question for you-what came first Christianity or Islam?
Why do you think that Islamic belief is correct when Old Testament was in existence hundreds of years before the Quran?
 
I would check out the commentary link that’s included in your post. 🙂 Also, there is a theme throughout Genesis of younger sons supplanting older ones. In this case, it doesn’t mean that Abraham literally doesn’t have another son; it just means that this is the son of Sarah, the son of promise that Abraham favors. Isaac was the only-begotten from Abraham’s marriage to Sarah, and thus he held a special place in Abraham’s life in God’s plan. Ishmael, however, also had promises and blessings from the Lord.
 
Bev17243 said:
I have a basic question for you-what came first Christianity or Islam?
Why do you think that Islamic belief is correct when Old Testament was in existence hundreds of years before the Quran?
Click to expand...
Your first question is largely irrelevant as Islamic belief holds that all the prophets of the OT such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon as well as Jesus ('Isa) worshipped and prostrated themselves to Allah and so are considered as a line prophets of a universal religion which is Islam.

You also have to understand that my belief is that the current Tawrah was corrupted in history and so the Bible as we know it today is likely wrong.
 
Ishmael is the son of the slave, Hagar, and as such, can never be considered the first begotten son. Had Sarah not conceived, Abraham could have designated Ishmael his heir but he would never be the first begotten son. The first begotten is born to the wife, not to a concubine/slave.

In Genesis16
  • 11 Then the angel of Yahweh said to her: Now, you have conceived and will bear a son, and you shall name him Ishmael, for Yahweh has heard your cries of distress.
12 A wild donkey of a man he will be, his hand against every man, and every man’s hand against him, living his life in defiance of all his kinsmen.
<…>
16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.*

It is following the birth of Ishmael that the Lord promises Abram that he will become the father of a host of nations. Ishmael is 13 by this time.

Genesis 17:
When Abram was ninety-nine years old Yahweh appeared to him and said, 'I am El Shaddai. Live in my presence, be perfect,

2 and I shall grant a covenant between myself and you, and make you very numerous.’
<…>
15 Furthermore God said to Abraham, 'As regards your wife Sarai, you must not call her Sarai, but Sarah.

16 I shall bless her and moreover give you a son by her. I shall bless her and she will become nations: kings of peoples will issue from her.’

17 Abraham bowed to the ground, and he laughed, thinking to himself, ‘Is a child to be born to a man one hundred years old, and will Sarah have a child at the age of ninety?’

18 Abraham said to God, ‘May Ishmael live in your presence! That will be enough!’

19 But God replied, 'Yes, your wife Sarah will bear you a son whom you must name Isaac. And I shall maintain my covenant with him, a covenant in perpetuity, to be his God and the God of his descendants after him.

20 For Ishmael too I grant you your request. I hereby bless him and will make him fruitful and exceedingly numerous. He will be the father of twelve princes, and I shall make him into a great nation.

21 But my covenant I shall maintain with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear you at this time next year.’
 
It is always of the true unbeliver to say that they have been taught or they know that the Judeo-Christian Bible was corrupted_ see Mohammed, Brigham Young, the lady that founded the JW’s and even Scientology. Of course in Scientology it was H. Ron Hubbard who was a very good scince fiction writer who bet his Christian friend that he could start a religion- and did so and that is Scientology.

The third Caliph destroyed all the writings that were attributed to Mohammed(Pboh) that he did not think would be supportive of his rule. Look it up>
 
  1. There is another thread that talks about same argument “bible has been corrupted”. Can u show any factual proof other than Quran that Bible has been “corrupted” in any way?
    2)I am a Protestant Christian currently and hoping to become a Catholic at some point in the future. However, I wasn’t a Christian until 5 years ago and I read Bible and Quran before I even become a Christian with no interest in converting to either one. At the time, I had no bias toward one or the other. So when I read Quran, the first logical thought that I had, that prophet Mohammed taken parts of the Bible and adapted it to suit himself and create his own religion. Because that’s what it looked like to me at that point. Add to the fact that Old Testament and Christianty do predate Islam by hundreds of years and my question to you is quite relevant and logical.
    3)I saw your other posts and it really seem that you are searching for the Truth. If you weren’t, you would just study the Quran and leave the Bible alone. I have been in simular position some tme ago and the advice I can give u is this-personally, I can’t be convinced just because someone tells me to believe something. However, what swayed me that Christianity is the Truth is historical evidence. You need to do the same-perhaps some true historical facts about Mohammed and Islam from some unbiased historians and do the same for Christianty. That is if you want to open your mind …
 
rdscheirer said:
It is always of the true unbeliver to say that they have been taught or they know that the Judeo-Christian Bible was corrupted_ see Mohammed, Brigham Young, the lady that founded the JW’s and even Scientology. Of course in Scientology it was H. Ron Hubbard who was a very good scince fiction writer who bet his Christian friend that he could start a religion- and did so and that is Scientology.

The third Caliph destroyed all the writings that were attributed to Mohammed(Pboh) that he did not think would be supportive of his rule. Look it up>
Click to expand...
just by this alone, I could argue that Quran was “corrupted” as well:shrug: anyone can say that Bible is wrong and their religion is right. When it comes down to it, one thing they are all short on is proof
 
Kouyate42 said:
OK, a question which is bugging me.

Islamic belief holds that Ismail (Ishmael) was the one who Abraham bound and put on the sacrificial altar on the command of Allah.

But the Bible holds Isaac to be the one Abraham offered.

My problem with this is from the Bible: Ishma’il was born first, and so was the eldest of the two half-brothers. However the Bible states this:

[BIBLEDRB]Genesis 22:2[/BIBLEDRB]

This passage holds Isaac to to the only son, which cannot be correct according to the Biblical narrative.

So. is the Bible wrong?
Click to expand...
Isaac was born of Abraham’s wife Sarah. Ishmael was born of his concubine Hagar who was also a slave of Sarah. This I understand was how Isaac is counted as Abraham;s “only” son.
 
Kouyate42 said:
Your first question is largely irrelevant as Islamic belief holds that all the prophets of the OT such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon as well as Jesus ('Isa) worshipped and prostrated themselves to Allah and so are considered as a line prophets of a universal religion which is Islam.

You also have to understand that my belief is that the current Tawrah was corrupted in history and so the Bible as we know it today is likely wrong.
Click to expand...
A month ago you were some sort of Jewish scholar, so what has changed your mind?
 
Kouyate42 said:
Your first question is largely irrelevant as Islamic belief holds that all the prophets of the OT such as Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon as well as Jesus ('Isa) worshipped and prostrated themselves to Allah and so are considered as a line prophets of a universal religion which is Islam.

** You also have to understand that my belief is that the current Tawrah was corrupted in history and so the Bible as we know it today is likely wrong.**
Click to expand...
Muslims are hypocrites. If the Bible states something supporting their beliefs then its not corrupt but if it states something which does not support them then they say its corrupt.
Islam is a false and violent religion and Mohammed was Satan’s best disciple.
 
thistle said:
Muslims are hypocrites. If the Bible states something supporting their beliefs then its not corrupt but if it states something which does not support them then they say its corrupt.
Islam is a false and violent religion and Mohammed was Satan’s best disciple.
Click to expand...
Please do some research into Islamic beliefs on the Gospels (Injil) before you say this.
 
Muslims do not accept that the bible is scripture inspired by God.

Quran 2:79 “Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: “This is from God,” to traffic with it for miserable price!”
 
triumphguy said:
Muslims do not accept that the bible is scripture inspired by God.

Quran 2:79 “Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: “This is from God,” to traffic with it for miserable price!”
Click to expand...
I was taught by the Imam that the Gospels of the Christian Bible represent something of a lost Gospel of Jesus. The passage you quote I was taught is talking more about the editing of the original Gospel text to suit human wishes.
 
Isaac was the one who Yahweh told Abraham to kill. We are the beneficiaries of Abraham’s willingness to kill his son, as we know that obeying WHATEVER God commands is good.
 
Isaac. The Quran doesn’t even state the child’s name…ergo the Quran isn’t sure. Besides Islamic scholars debated over this between themselves back in the days. Why would it be debated then?

MJ
 
If Muslims really accept the Bible then how can they deny that Christ actually died on the Cross, and rose from the dead?
 
Kouyate42 said:
You also have to understand that my belief is that the current Tawrah was corrupted in history and so the Bible as we know it today is likely wrong.
Click to expand...
I’ll repeat what I always say to people that state this, you’re directly acknowledging that man has the capability to distorted and destroy God’s truth into the world. Congratulations, you’re a Gnostic who believes evil can overcome good.
 
MartinJordan said:
Isaac. The Quran doesn’t even state the child’s name…ergo the Quran isn’t sure. Besides Islamic scholars debated over this between themselves back in the days. Why would it be debated then?

MJ
Click to expand...
Here’s an article: islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/MusTrad/sacrifice.html

Seems to make a pretty good Qur’anic case for the sacrifice of Ishmael.

@triumphguy and Trevor Stamm:

I’ll answer these two posts together as they’re both asking similar questions. Dates and other information I am using the writings of Abdullah Yusaf Ali.

With the Tawrah, there is no extant copy of the text which can be reliably dated to earlier than the 9th century AD (and no, you can’t use the Dead Sea Scrolls as these are partial and apocryphal). Given that the Torah was revealed almost 2000 years before 'Isa, then it must have been written in a primitive Hebrew of which we have not one scrap of text. My Tanakh actually lists several Hebrew texts from which their text was assembled, with the editors having to choose the ‘best’ option where two alternate or contradictory passages appear.

With regard to the Injil, what is essentially presented isn’t even a harmonized partwork consisting of four parts but four separate books each with their own intentions and they cannot agree on even the most basic of facts concerning the life events of Jesus or his teachings/actions. Then there’s the supposed non-canonical Gospels of Jesus such as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas which were mysteriously judged to be not part of the canon, which is probably an issue of finding what fits with the agreed version of the events of Jesus’ life by the early church. In short, they simply deleted what they saw fit.
Take the Gospel of John. There is huge dispute as to authorship and date, or even whether the gospel was written by one person or at the same time. Even my NIV admits some passages don’t feature in some manuscripts across all four gospels.

Surely if all four Gospels were writing on the ONE set of teachings, they could at least agree to some extent?

The Peshitta, the Syriac text used by Arab Christians also doesn’t feature the Book of Revelations which features in the Western canon. Even different Churches in the Western world can’t agree on which books of the Bible are actually meant to be there, even now.

At least all Muslims agree on the whole Qur’an, even if interpretation of said Qur’an differs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top