The long and strange track I chose.
The long and strange track I chose; the long road that leads me out to God knows.
--Glen Hansard, lead guitarist and vocalist of The FramesI love that quote. It's like my non-Bible life quote, as you can see from my livejournal userinfo page ( Read more... )
--Glen Hansard, lead guitarist and vocalist of The FramesI love that quote. It's like my non-Bible life quote, as you can see from my livejournal userinfo page ( Read more... )
The following issue can destroy ISLAM or ISRAEL; study it thoroughly to see if there is any truth to it.
Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%2021;&version=46;
Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.
GENESIS 16:16
And Hagar bore Abram a son; and Abram called the name of his son, whom Hagar bore, Ish’mael. Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore Ish’mael to Abram.
GENESIS 21:5
Abraham was a hundred years old when his son Isaac was born to him.
At Genesis 22 Abraham had only 2 sons others came later. The Quran mentions that it was Ishmael that was sacrificed hence the reference in genesis 22:2 your only son can only mean someone has substituted Ishmael names for Isaac!!
BY DOING SOME KINDERGARTEN ARITHMATIC USING ARABIC NUMBERS (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10)
NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
100 years old - 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING
THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
GENESIS: 21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba. When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.” And as she sat over against him, the (17 YEAR OLD) child lifted up his voice and wept. And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is. Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation.” Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink. And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
This makes the conflict between Ishmael and Isaac and there descendants a work of fiction. I would strongly suggest it is clear cut case of racial discrimination and nothing to do with god almighty. The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??
Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?
I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)
http://bible.islamicweb.com/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806,00.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
(ISRAELI HOLOCAUST AND WAR CRIMES)
http://ifamericansknew.com/
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm
(BIBLE, QURAN and SCIENCE)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ ANTI-WAR
http://www.harunyahya.com/
(EVOLUTION DECEIPT)
HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122
Reply
I will respond to and expand upon each point of interest in consideration of the need as follows.
Genesis 21:14 Contemporary English version se below link
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=GENESIS%2021;&version=46;
The person (let us refer to him as a man for the purpose of simplicity) starts off by quoting an obscure 1995 printing of the Contemporary English version of the Bible. The later words of the anonymous would lead me to believe that he is perhaps the resident of a country where English is not the primary language. Considering that, I would not be surprised that he chose to quote the CEV; it is a Bible specifically designed for young children and people to whom English is a second or other language.
One of the big no-no's of developing good theology is to not develop it from a "contemporary" version or something where the language is simplified for the sake of those who's reading level is not to par with that of people who speak English firstly. If he had simply clicked the drop-down box on the Bible Gateway quote he linked to above, he would have seen many other English Bible verisons where the context of his quote is pitched correctly.
Genesis 21:14, from CEV, as he quoted:
Early the next morning Abraham gave Hagar an animal skin full of water and some bread. Then he put the boy on her shoulder and sent them away.
New International Version says:
"Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba."
New Living Translation says:
"So Abraham got up early the next morning, prepared food and a container of water, and strapped them on Hagar’s shoulders. Then he sent her away with their son, and she wandered aimlessly in the wilderness of Beersheba."
But to be fair, the best idea is to, as with all supposed Bible discrepencies, refer to the original language. In this case, ancient Hebrew. I will write the words of importance they sound in Hebrew, since I don't have Hebrew characters on my computer and can only assume that most people do not.
Yeled is the Hebrew word that translates into "boy" and "son" in the quotes above. The context of boy is obvious, but son doesn't necessarily mean a child.
Additionally, the word can mean something that is born, a child, a fruit, or a young man.
The Hebrew and King James do not illustrate the age of Ishmael in this passage. The Hebrew and KJ simply imply that Hagar and Ishmael went off together. It could be implied that he was carried, if there was corroborative evidence, but it could also be implied that they simply went together. The passage itself does not necessarily lean either way; what matters is context, and from this passage alone, as said, Ishmael's age is not in context (since his birth is written of earlier) and therefore we can not make guesses at his age based solely on this verse.
Reply
The verse in question is this:
Genesis 22:2 (NIV)
"Take your son, your only son-yes, Isaac, whom you love so much-and go to the land of Moriah. Go and sacrifice him as a burnt offering on one of the mountains, which I will show you.”
Several reasons can be attributed as to why the passage refers to Isaac as Abraham's only son. There are certainly more credible and less extravagant reasons than a forgery or plagiarism. But I will simply list the strongest and most important one.
The word translated as "only," Yakeed, can also be translated as "beloved" or "darling." Since Isaac is a prophetic representation of Christ, this makes a lot of sense in consideration of the words of John 3:16 -- "For God so loved the world that he sent his only (Greek monogones--beloved, darling) begotten Son, that whoever would believe in Him would not perish but have everlasting life."
A similar situation actually exists in the book of Hebrews, in reference to this very situation. As the good people at Apologeticspress.org put it,
"In truth, the problem has nothing to do with the writer of the book of Hebrews, but everything to do with the translators of the Greek into English. In the Greek text of Hebrews 11:17, the word translated as "only begotten son" is monogenes. While this word could possibly be used to refer to an only child, that certainly was not its sole use. Josephus used the word monogenes to refer to Izates, who had an older brother and several younger brothers (Antiquities, 20.2.1). The well-respected Greek-English Lexicon by Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker explains that the word can be used to denote something that is "unique (in kind) of something that is the only example of its category" (1979, p.527). This meaning fits perfectly the passage in Hebrews 11, where the writer was explaining that Abraham offered up his "only promised son." Abraham had no other children that fit in the category of being promised by God. Isaac was the only "example of a category"--that category being a son who was promised to Abraham and Sarah. Although Abraham had many other children by other women, he had no other child "of promise." Isacc was his unique son, the only one of promise: the "monogones." [A]
In Hebrew, we would call him the Yakeed.
Reply
NOT ROMAN NUMERALS (I, II, III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X) NB no concept of zero in roman numerals.
100 years old - 86 years old = 14 ADD 3 YEARS FOR ISSAC’S WEANING
THAT WOULD MAKE ISHMAEL 17 YEARS OLD IN GENESIS 21:14-21
BUT IT IS A DESCRIPTION OF AN INFANT.
Seventeen is about right, give or take. Although I am aware that we use an Arabic number system.
This is where it becomes very problematic for this anonymous poster. The bulk and strongest point of his argument is based on incorrect interpretation of a (what in this issue has proved to be) insufficient translation, and he has not yet cited any knowledge of history, anthropology or language. These are issues that are always important in matters of four-thousand-year-old ancient texts.
Carefully read several times the above passage and then tell me the mental picture you get between the mother child interactions what is the age of the child. If the mental picture is that of a 17 year old child being carried on the shoulder of his mother, being physically placed in the bush, crying like a baby, mother having to give him water to drink, than the Islamic viewpoint is null and void. Why is there no verbal communications between mother and (17 YEAR OLD) child?
My subjective interpretation means nothing if is not representative of the facts.
GENESIS: 21:14 - 21
So Abraham rose early in the morning, and took bread and a skin of water, and gave it to Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, along with the (17 YEAR OLD) child, and sent her away. And she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beer-Sheba.
As shown already, there is significant reason to believe that the CEV is incorrect in portraying Ishmael as being carried by Hagar.
When the water in the skin was gone, she cast the (17 YEAR OLD) child under one of the bushes. Then she went, and sat down over against him a good way off, about the distance of a bowshot; for she said, “Let me not look upon the death of the (17 YEAR OLD) child.”
Two things. One, if all the water was gone, it is certainly a possibility that Ishamel may have been dying of thirst. This is supported by the fact that Hagar did not want to look upon the death of her son. Assuming that this happened, we could say that Hagar carried the dying Ishmael and laid him, heat-stricken and delirious, under a shaded bush, then walked a short distance away and wept. There is nothing outlandish about this.
Two, the Hebrew words for "cast" in this verse are Shawlak ayth. Shawlak, among other interpretations, can mean to throw, pluck, cast out, cast forth, cast off or cast away. Ayth is a grammatical term that is used to point out the object of a verb or preposition. It has two root terms. One of the root terms, Oth, is in reference to a flag, beacon, or monument (as in to point out the bushes from a distance.) The other term, Ooth, is a primitive root that means "to come" or "to agree." What does that mean? It means that another equally viable scenario for this passage would be that Hagar pointed out to a bush in the distance, told Ishmael to go sit/lie under it, and he went.
Reply
Another CEV issue; Ishmael isn't weeping in this verse. Hagar is.
And God heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven, and said to her, “What troubles you, Hagar? Fear not; for God has heard the voice of the (17 YEAR OLD) lad where he is.
Regardless of if Ishmael was dying of thirst or not, I think I might also weep if I was stranded out in the desert with no water. I think there are many people older than seventeen who would be upset at this.
Arise, lift up the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and hold him fast with your hand; for I will make him a great nation."
The Hebrew term for "hold him" is Kazak. Kazak is a term that can mean cure, strengthen, help or aid, among many other interpretations. If Ishmael is laying down a distance away, perhaps dehydrated, it would make sense for God to tell Hagar to go help him up.
Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the skin with water, and gave the (17 YEAR OLD) lad a drink.
The passage doesn't say Ishmael was incapable of getting water. All it says is that Hagar got the water and brought it to Ishmael. There's no reason to go out on a limb about anything in regards to this passage. Just because he's seventeen doesn't mean his mother can't bring him water, especially under the very likely circumstance that he was not in the best of health.
And God was with the (17 YEAR OLD) lad, and he grew up; he lived in the wilderness, and became an expert with the bow. He lived in the wilderness of Paran; and his mother took a wife for him from the land of Egypt.
And God was with him as he grew into a man. There's no reason to highlight that he was seventeen here; a seventeen-year-old still has growing up to do.
Reply
Assuming that what was stated held up to scholarly criticism. Your objections are speculative at best.
The scribes have deliberately tried to make Isaac the only son and legitimate heir to the throne of Abraham??
If they were trying to do that, they probably would have removed Ishmael from the story completely. He could probably be compared to a guest star in the book of Genesis; his removal would not affect the story very much.
Please can you rationally explain this anomaly?
See above.
I have asked many persons including my nephews and nieces - unbiased minds with no religious backgrounds but with reasonable command of the English language about this passage and they all agree that the child in the passage is an infant.
There are times when more than an unbiased mind is needed. There are times when scholarly resources will help fill in the gaps in the story. Times like this.
The story would make sense if the child were an infant. But it also makes sense if he was a teenager--and the Bible implies that he would, by this time, be a teenager.
Since there is no reason to question the authority of the Bible in this case, we must assume that it is true in regards to the age of Ishmael. You have not proven why it should not be trusted here.
Please note this is not a competition between faiths but an attempt to decipher fact from fiction.
...
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM
(MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE)
http://bible.islamicweb.com/
http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-galloway_060806,00.html
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7828123714384920696
(ISRAELI HOLOCAUST AND WAR CRIMES)
http://ifamericansknew.com/
http://www.witness-pioneer.org/vil/Books/MB_BQS/default.htm
(BIBLE, QURAN and SCIENCE)
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/ ANTI-WAR
http://www.harunyahya.com/
(EVOLUTION DECEIPT)
HOLY QURAN CHAPTER 37 verses 101 - 122
Then why is it necessary for you to end your critique with a list of pro-Islam websites?
I believe I have adequately made the case that these passages of scripture are not objectively fiction. They are not self-contradictory within themselves. If you are willing to accept that fact as authoratative, then you must, in good conscious, recognize that it is perhaps you who need to study the issues thoroughly and see if there is truth.
It is easy to cite what looks like a contradiction because it satisfies your bias and subjective feelings. It is a lot harder to look at things for what they really are, because when we do this, we are very often dissatisfied.
I hope the sentiments expressed here are honest. It would be a shame if they were simply a mask for ignorance.
A: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1783
Reply
Leave a comment