Re: Isaac and Ishmael (continued from in response to Jochen thread)

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Debate ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Mohamed Ghounem on February 19, 1998 at 19:12:50:

In Reply to: Re: Isaac and Ishmael (continued from in response to Jochen thread) posted by Malakh on February 18, 1998 at 23:06:39:

Dear Brother Malakh,
Hello,

I wrote:
>I have shown you mathmatically that Ishmael was the son of Abraham who was to be sacraficed.

you wrote;
You have shown nothing mathematically in the following post to prove anything...
http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/991.html
Care to point out where in this post you use anything to prove anything?

I respond:
Okey dokey, when Abraham was 99, his only begotten son was Ishmael, and Allah made a convenant with Abraham and Ishmael "before" Isaac was born.

Genesis 17:23-26

23Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all the servants who were *born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, *as God had said to him.

24Now Abraham was ninety-nine years old when *he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

25And *Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

26In the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son.

Genesis 17:9-11

9God said further to Abraham, ĢNow as for you, *you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.

10This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

11And *you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

Allah has made a covenant with Abraham and his son Ismael through the circusision, when Abraham was 99.

Now does that qualify as a lagetamate son according to you brothter Malakh, now when the Bible says "only begotten son", is this refering to Isaac, ofcourse not because Abraham has a son before Isaac, Ishmael.

The sacrafice was done before the covenant was formed with Abraham, prior to Abraham haveing Isaac at the age 100.

Ishmael was 13 when Abraham was 99, Abrahams only begotten son was Ishmael. After Abraham was tested, the covenant was made, it is not hard to accept that the scribes changed the name Isaac into Ishmael, as they openly admit that they changed the words around.

I wrote:
>I have shown you morally that Ishmael is a valid son and therefore Isaac was "not" the
>only begotten son, Ishmael was at the time of the sacrafice:
>http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/1052.htm

Malakh responds;
I concede that genetically Ishmael was Abrahams son, I do not agree with your definition of 'moral' son though. Abraham fathered a child but Hagar and the teenager were cast out of the house - and Sarah says it succinctly when she says: Gen 21:10 and she saith to Abraham, `Cast out this handmaid and her son; for the son of this handmaid hath no possession with my son -- with Isaac.'Isaac was the son born to Abraham and Sarah Ishmael fulfilled a different set of Gods purposes. Sarah was still the free woman and Hagar her slave.....regardless of who Hagar slept with.

Mohamed responds:
You would like to have me and the reader to think that Ishmael lost his sonship over the Jelousy of Sara, your trying to put together bits and peices trying to say that Ishmael started out as Abraham's son but once Ishmael and his mom left, Ismael hence forth was no longer Abrahams son.

This is your logic so that when the Bible says "Abraham's only begotten son is to be sacraficed", you can falsely claim it was Isaac.

Why is it that you consistantly deny that even after Abraham died Genesis 25:9, Ishmael is called "Abraham's son", If it is not clear brother Malakh, then kindly allow me to clarify.

Ishmael, was born Abraham's son, and stayed Abraham's son, this did not change and the covenant was first made with Abraham and his son Ishmael.

According to you brother Malakh, at the time of Abraham's death, Ishmael was not a son/lagitamate son. Can you explain why then the Bible refers to Ishmael as Abraham's son who buried Abraham.

Is your explaination that Ishamael became a son again and only during the sacrafice was that Ishmael not a son but then became a son again?

Malakh wrote;
God commanded Abraham to offer his only son for a burnt offering upon a particular mountain in the land of Moriah. In Heb. 11:17 we are told that Isaac was Abraham's "only begotten son." Abraham had another son, Ishmael (who dwelt in the wilderness of Paran at this time), but Isaac alone was the "only begotten son." Isaac alone was born after the Spirit in a supernatural manner,(God-willed) and, thus, was the only son recognized by God as fit for the sacrifice.

Mohamed responds:
1. Allah made a covenant with Ishmael and Abraham, you claim Allah does not see Ishmael fit for sacrafice, why then is Ishmael fit to have a covenant with Allah Genesis 17:9-11? Allah sees Ishmael as fit, but you and your preachers and commentators add judgements so that the story would not contradict, I am not here to attack, only to clarify and ask you to reflect at your line of logic.
2. it is not supernatural, older women have had births, it is not common but it is not supernatural.
3. Ishael was in Paran at marrying age, not at the time of sacrafice, you can try to discredit Ishmael as a son, you can place him somewhere else, but the facts don't change. The only possible begotten son is at the time of the sacrafice is Ishmael.

The Christian scholars recognized this error and that is why they removed the word "begotten" in the NIV Bible which still appears in the KJV Bible. The scholars recognize the mistake and they go against the teachings of the Bible by removing words inorder to coverup the error. Those who add or remove words from the Bible will be cursed. Therefore the editors of the NIV are cursed according to the Bible they edit.

Malakh wrote;
Oh yeah, and that reminds me...I notice youve failed yet again to even attempt to answer any of my questions - is it just too difficult for you to find the words here or can you not come upwith any concrete documented logical or historical facts, outside of your own Quran?

Mohamed responds:
What questions?, I try to get to the ones I can answer without alot of research and save the others for when time permits, pardon my lack of time.

Mohamed writes:
> am looking discuss the teachings of true teachers, Paul is a false teacher.

Malakh responds;
That is akin to me telling you that Mohummed is a false prophet. Care to throw more stones?

It appears to me that when someone backs you and your faith into a corner, you come out, not with logic and factual intelligence, not with humility, but with attacks on the person.

Mohamed responds:
I was able to get a chance finally to post "Is Paul a false teacher?" above, it is not meant as an attack and I am here and now telling you that my purpose is to remove misconceptions, not to attack.

Malakh wrote;
Whether that is a difference in our cultures or not is irrelevant. By the way, I am not from the MidWest USA, so there you go, proven wrong again, werent you? I dont even live in the USA...so not only were you not in the right ballpark, you werent even in the right country....shows you just how wrong you can be, huh? Perhaps you need to reexamine your faith as well, as it could be way out of bounds as well. Youve also demonstrated yourself to be too proud to admit when youve either misunderstood something, didnt know the answer to something or were just out and out wrong. Youre out and out wrong on this one, bro, admit it ;-)

Mohamed responds:
yeah, sure buddy, anything you say, when I said drink coffee, I did not mean the whole pot. Pardon my assumption on your geographical location, you use a slang of a cowboy and therefore I assumed you were in America, I had no facts to support this and that is why I made a guess, not a statement.

Should I reexamaine my faith because I wrongly guessed your location. Is this your logic? I have shown you Paul is a false teacher, I have shown you true teachings of Jesus, I have shown you where the Bible has been tampered and have shown you how the Qur'an preserves the original teachings of the Prophets. Yet since I wrongly guessed your location, that must mean I am wrong according to you. I am actually honored that you jump all over the fact that I wrongly guessed your location because that shows you've been waiting for me to make a error, I am glad I gave you that tension relief ;-))

Malakh wrote;
You have your rights to your opinion, as for me, Im serving the Lord God Almighty and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded through the Holy Spirit via the Gospels. You have yet to even attempt to explain why you think the Injeel is the 'correct' version of the gospels. The archeological discoveries have proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that Jesus Christ was crucified, died and rose again according to the scriptures.

Mohamed responds:
The word "Injeel" is (Gospel) in Arabic and the Greek meaning is "Verbal Message" Therefore, the verbal message of Jesus was true, and a guide to humankind, what the men have written down has been changed over and over until people started worshiping Jesus and attributing a son to Allah, around 600 AD, Pagans were the ruling party and were only getting stronger, that is when Allah sent the final warning to confirm the Truth and expell the false.

Malakh wrote;
If you dont want to even attempt to show me the evidences you have to prove the Quran is the Word of God as written down by Mohummed, burned by Uthman and rewritten according to an old mans memory and a few of his buddies, well then I guess we have nothing left to discuss on this matter.

Matthew 10:14
If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

Mark 6:11
And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

Luke 9:5
If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them."

Luke 10:11
`Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.'

Mohamed responds;
If you stay, I will use decaffenated coffee ;-)

Peace and Blessings,
Your Brother in Islam: Mohamed

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name :
E-Mail :

Subject : Re: Re: Isaac and Ishmael (continued from in response to Jochen thread)

Comments:
: Dear Brother Malakh,
: Hello,

: I wrote:
: >I have shown you mathmatically that Ishmael was the son of Abraham who was to be sacraficed.

: you wrote;
: You have shown nothing mathematically in the following post to prove anything...
: http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/991.html
: Care to point out where in this post you use anything to prove anything?

: I respond:
: Okey dokey, when Abraham was 99, his only begotten son was Ishmael, and Allah made a convenant with Abraham and Ishmael "before" Isaac was born.

: Genesis 17:23-26

: 23Then Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all the servants who were *born in his house and all who were bought with his money, every male among the men of Abraham's household, and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the very same day, *as God had said to him.

: 24Now Abraham was ninety-nine years old when *he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

: 25And *Ishmael his son was thirteen years old when he was circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin.

: 26In the very same day Abraham was circumcised, and Ishmael his son.

: Genesis 17:9-11

: 9God said further to Abraham, ĢNow as for you, *you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.

: 10This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised.

: 11And *you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.

: Allah has made a covenant with Abraham and his son Ismael through the circusision, when Abraham was 99.

: Now does that qualify as a lagetamate son according to you brothter Malakh, now when the Bible says "only begotten son", is this refering to Isaac, ofcourse not because Abraham has a son before Isaac, Ishmael.

: The sacrafice was done before the covenant was formed with Abraham, prior to Abraham haveing Isaac at the age 100.

: Ishmael was 13 when Abraham was 99, Abrahams only begotten son was Ishmael. After Abraham was tested, the covenant was made, it is not hard to accept that the scribes changed the name Isaac into Ishmael, as they openly admit that they changed the words around.

: I wrote:
: >I have shown you morally that Ishmael is a valid son and therefore Isaac was "not" the
: >only begotten son, Ishmael was at the time of the sacrafice:
: >http://debate.org.uk/weboard/debate/messages/1052.htm

: Malakh responds;
: I concede that genetically Ishmael was Abrahams son, I do not agree with your definition of 'moral' son though. Abraham fathered a child but Hagar and the teenager were cast out of the house - and Sarah says it succinctly when she says: Gen 21:10 and she saith to Abraham, `Cast out this handmaid and her son; for the son of this handmaid hath no possession with my son -- with Isaac.'Isaac was the son born to Abraham and Sarah Ishmael fulfilled a different set of Gods purposes. Sarah was still the free woman and Hagar her slave.....regardless of who Hagar slept with.

: Mohamed responds:
: You would like to have me and the reader to think that Ishmael lost his sonship over the Jelousy of Sara, your trying to put together bits and peices trying to say that Ishmael started out as Abraham's son but once Ishmael and his mom left, Ismael hence forth was no longer Abrahams son.

: This is your logic so that when the Bible says "Abraham's only begotten son is to be sacraficed", you can falsely claim it was Isaac.

: Why is it that you consistantly deny that even after Abraham died Genesis 25:9, Ishmael is called "Abraham's son", If it is not clear brother Malakh, then kindly allow me to clarify.

: Ishmael, was born Abraham's son, and stayed Abraham's son, this did not change and the covenant was first made with Abraham and his son Ishmael.

: According to you brother Malakh, at the time of Abraham's death, Ishmael was not a son/lagitamate son. Can you explain why then the Bible refers to Ishmael as Abraham's son who buried Abraham.

: Is your explaination that Ishamael became a son again and only during the sacrafice was that Ishmael not a son but then became a son again?

: Malakh wrote;
: God commanded Abraham to offer his only son for a burnt offering upon a particular mountain in the land of Moriah. In Heb. 11:17 we are told that Isaac was Abraham's "only begotten son." Abraham had another son, Ishmael (who dwelt in the wilderness of Paran at this time), but Isaac alone was the "only begotten son." Isaac alone was born after the Spirit in a supernatural manner,(God-willed) and, thus, was the only son recognized by God as fit for the sacrifice.

: Mohamed responds:
: 1. Allah made a covenant with Ishmael and Abraham, you claim Allah does not see Ishmael fit for sacrafice, why then is Ishmael fit to have a covenant with Allah Genesis 17:9-11? Allah sees Ishmael as fit, but you and your preachers and commentators add judgements so that the story would not contradict, I am not here to attack, only to clarify and ask you to reflect at your line of logic.
: 2. it is not supernatural, older women have had births, it is not common but it is not supernatural.
: 3. Ishael was in Paran at marrying age, not at the time of sacrafice, you can try to discredit Ishmael as a son, you can place him somewhere else, but the facts don't change. The only possible begotten son is at the time of the sacrafice is Ishmael.

: The Christian scholars recognized this error and that is why they removed the word "begotten" in the NIV Bible which still appears in the KJV Bible. The scholars recognize the mistake and they go against the teachings of the Bible by removing words inorder to coverup the error. Those who add or remove words from the Bible will be cursed. Therefore the editors of the NIV are cursed according to the Bible they edit.

: Malakh wrote;
: Oh yeah, and that reminds me...I notice youve failed yet again to even attempt to answer any of my questions - is it just too difficult for you to find the words here or can you not come upwith any concrete documented logical or historical facts, outside of your own Quran?

: Mohamed responds:
: What questions?, I try to get to the ones I can answer without alot of research and save the others for when time permits, pardon my lack of time.

: Mohamed writes:
: > am looking discuss the teachings of true teachers, Paul is a false teacher.

: Malakh responds;
: That is akin to me telling you that Mohummed is a false prophet. Care to throw more stones?

: It appears to me that when someone backs you and your faith into a corner, you come out, not with logic and factual intelligence, not with humility, but with attacks on the person.

: Mohamed responds:
: I was able to get a chance finally to post "Is Paul a false teacher?" above, it is not meant as an attack and I am here and now telling you that my purpose is to remove misconceptions, not to attack.

: Malakh wrote;
: Whether that is a difference in our cultures or not is irrelevant. By the way, I am not from the MidWest USA, so there you go, proven wrong again, werent you? I dont even live in the USA...so not only were you not in the right ballpark, you werent even in the right country....shows you just how wrong you can be, huh? Perhaps you need to reexamine your faith as well, as it could be way out of bounds as well. Youve also demonstrated yourself to be too proud to admit when youve either misunderstood something, didnt know the answer to something or were just out and out wrong. Youre out and out wrong on this one, bro, admit it ;-)

: Mohamed responds:
: yeah, sure buddy, anything you say, when I said drink coffee, I did not mean the whole pot. Pardon my assumption on your geographical location, you use a slang of a cowboy and therefore I assumed you were in America, I had no facts to support this and that is why I made a guess, not a statement.

: Should I reexamaine my faith because I wrongly guessed your location. Is this your logic? I have shown you Paul is a false teacher, I have shown you true teachings of Jesus, I have shown you where the Bible has been tampered and have shown you how the Qur'an preserves the original teachings of the Prophets. Yet since I wrongly guessed your location, that must mean I am wrong according to you. I am actually honored that you jump all over the fact that I wrongly guessed your location because that shows you've been waiting for me to make a error, I am glad I gave you that tension relief ;-))

: Malakh wrote;
: You have your rights to your opinion, as for me, Im serving the Lord God Almighty and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as recorded through the Holy Spirit via the Gospels. You have yet to even attempt to explain why you think the Injeel is the 'correct' version of the gospels. The archeological discoveries have proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, that Jesus Christ was crucified, died and rose again according to the scriptures.

: Mohamed responds:
: The word "Injeel" is (Gospel) in Arabic and the Greek meaning is "Verbal Message" Therefore, the verbal message of Jesus was true, and a guide to humankind, what the men have written down has been changed over and over until people started worshiping Jesus and attributing a son to Allah, around 600 AD, Pagans were the ruling party and were only getting stronger, that is when Allah sent the final warning to confirm the Truth and expell the false.

: Malakh wrote;
: If you dont want to even attempt to show me the evidences you have to prove the Quran is the Word of God as written down by Mohummed, burned by Uthman and rewritten according to an old mans memory and a few of his buddies, well then I guess we have nothing left to discuss on this matter.

: Matthew 10:14
: If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town.

: Mark 6:11
: And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them."

: Luke 9:5
: If people do not welcome you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave their town, as a testimony against them."

: Luke 10:11
: `Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.'

: Mohamed responds;
: If you stay, I will use decaffenated coffee ;-)

: Peace and Blessings,
: Your Brother in Islam: Mohamed

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Debate ] [ FAQ ]