Support NeoGAF

[Maninthemirror]

Abraham did have two sons BUT only one was the son of promise (God's promise to Abram and Sara). Look at Jacob. He was born after Esau but he was the son of promise. Joseph wasn't the firstborn of his father but was the son through which the promise went through. David wasn't the firstborn of his father but is the son through which the promise went through.

From the Christian persoective, the Bible begins and ends with Jesus in some way. Adam was the one that caused humanity to fall and Jesis is the one that rescued humanity. The promise would come through Adam. It went to Abram, then to Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc.

Ishmael was a result of Abram having sex outside of marriage with Sara and since the promise from God was to both Abram and Sara, it had to be THEIR son that would carry the promise, fulfilling the promise from God. Ishmael didnt fit the bill.

You don't have to be "the son of Promise" to be labelled as the sacrificial lamb. Christianity is purposely sidelining Ishmael and giving credence to Isaac only because the lineage of Christianity comes down from Isaac. it seems if it was the opposite way around Ishmael would have been given credence.

I just qouted you. How can it be outside of Marriage if the Bible says

So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (Genesis 16:3)



interesting because

(Genesis 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac.

(Genesis 21:12) For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

is usually used,

God's covenant with Abraham was made before he had any children. The reiteration of Abraham's covenant was done after Ishmael was born but before Isaac was born.

and then the Bible says:

(Genesis 21:13) Of the son of the maidservant (i.e. Ishmael) I will make a great nation because he is thy seed.

and then confirmed by these:

(Genesis 21:18) Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in your hand; for I will make him a great nation.
(Genesis 21:20) God was with the boy as he grew up.


in (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) we are reminded that a firstborn son is to be given a double share of inheritance regardless of the circumstances since the first born is the first sign of his father's strength. For the following 14 years, Ishmael was Abraham's only child. Later, Abraham's first wife Sarah bears him a son, Isaac (Gen 21:1-5). After the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac, God's promise to bless the families of the earth through Abraham's descendants was repeated:

(Genesis 17:4) As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shall be a father of many nations.

The fact is both sons were given covenants of God. Isaac's nation came first, Ishmael's came later. But they both came.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

You don't have to be "the son of Promise" to be labelled as the sacrificial lamb. Christianity is purposely sidelining Ishmael and giving credence to Isaac only because the lineage of Christianity comes down from Isaac. it seems if it was the opposite way around Ishmael would have been given credence.

I just qouted you. How can it be outside of Marriage if the Bible says

So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband to be his wife. (Genesis 16:3)



interesting because

(Genesis 17:21) But my covenant will I establish with Isaac.

(Genesis 21:12) For in Isaac shall thy seed be called.

is usually used,

God's covenant with Abraham was made before he had any children. The reiteration of Abraham's covenant was done after Ishmael was born but before Isaac was born.

and then the Bible says:

(Genesis 21:13) Of the son of the maidservant (i.e. Ishmael) I will make a great nation because he is thy seed.

and then confirmed by these:

(Genesis 21:18) Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in your hand; for I will make him a great nation.
(Genesis 21:20) God was with the boy as he grew up.

Chrisianity came out of Judaism which also has Isaac as the son of promise. So your problem isnt with Chrisianity but Judaism. Also, Sara gave Hagar to Abram but that was due to her lack of faith that God would do what he said and Abram complied. That doesn't negate God's promise which was to give them a son of their own who turned out to be Isaac. The son of promise.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Chrisianity came out of Judaism which also has Isaac as the son of promise. So your problem isnt with Chrisianity but Judaism. Also, Sara gave Hagar to Abram but that was due to her lack of faith that God would do what he said and Abram complied. That doesn't negate God's promise which was to give them a son of their own who turned out to be Isaac. The son of promise.

So you agree Ishmael was Abraham's first son and his legitimate son because Sarah gave Hagar to Abraham to be his wife and conceive as the Bible says itself. Correct?

(Genesis 17:4) As for me, behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shall be a father of many nations. <-- this promise was made before Ishmael was born

God told Abraham that his lineage would be the father of many nations. Obviously both from Ishmael and Isaac as BOTH were promised great nations, not one.

because it says right here:

Deuteronomy 21:15-17: "If a man have two wives, one beloved and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hash, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hash: for he is the beginning of the strength; the right of the firstborn is his."

God's own words

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

No I don't agree that he was the first legitimate son. Abram and Sara were married ad therefore any son outside of their marriage is illigitimate. Hagar was a servant. Just because Sara agreed to have Abram sleep with her doesn't make Ishmael legitimate. Ishmael was a son of Abram, not Abram and Sara who were the ones given the promise. In the context of the actual culture that the account took place in Isaac was the only legitimate son.

Btw, are you Muslim by chance?

 

[Maninthemirror]

No I don't agree that he was the first legitimate son. Abram and Sara were married ad therefore any son outside of their marriage is illigitimate. Hagar was a servant. Just because Sara agreed to have Abram sleep with her doesn't make Ishmael legitimate. Ishmael was a son of Abram, not Abram and Sara who were the ones given the promise. In the context of the actual culture that the account took place in Isaac was the only legitimate son.

Btw, are you Muslim by chance?

So you don't agree with the Bibles own words that Sarah gave Hagar to his husband as his wife? Which means second marriage ? Which means legit child ?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

So you don't agree with the Bibles own words that Sarah gave Hagar to his husband as his wife? Which means second marriage ? Which means legit child ?

She was allowed to be Abram's wife by Sara but the promise wasnt given to Hagar and Abram, rather Sara and Abram. This is the crux of the matter. Sara and Abram received the promise from God. Sara wasnt faithful at the time and tried to take a shortcut. God according to the Tanakh didn't change his plan just because of Sarah's act.

Due to Abram being the servant of God, he still blessed him by protecting his son Ishmael and giving him a people of his own. However, once again, the promise was going to come through Abram and Sara which happened to be Isaac. Not sure why you are having difficulty with this.

Also, are you Muslim? If so, it would help me understand the position you have.

 

[Maninthemirror]

She was allowed to be Abram's wife by Sara but the promise wasnt given to Hagar and Abram, rather Sara and Abram. This is the crux of the matter. Sara and Abram received the promise from God. Sara wasnt faithful at the time and tried to take a shortcut. God according to the Tanakh didn't change his plan just because of Sarah's act.

Due to Abram being the servant of God, he still blessed him by protecting his son Ishmael and giving him a people of his own. However, once again, the promise was going to come through Abram and Sara which happened to be Isaac. Not sure why you are having difficulty with this.

Also, are you Muslim? If so, it would help me understand the position you have.

My being or not being a Muslim or anything is not the discussion.

You seem to be uniting the Abraham and Sarah for the covenant when in fact the promise was made to Abraham alone and his seeds. God did not make Sarah a Prophet he made Abraham the Prophet. God was the one who named Ishmael does that make him not be part of the covenant? Promising that Ishmael would have a great nation is not disallowing the covenant its being part of Abraham's covenant.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

My being or not being a Muslim or anything is not the discussion.

You seem to be uniting the Abraham and Sarah for the covenant when in fact the promise was made to Abraham alone and his seeds. God did not make Sarah a Prophet he made Abraham the Prophet. God was the one who named Ishmael does that make him not be part of the covenant? Promising that Ishmael would have a great nation is not disallowing the covenant its being part of Abraham's covenant.

Ok, so you are a Muslim (Jews/Christians don't usually label Abraham as a prophet). There is no point in going forward because Qu'ran argues that the Bible was changed, mishandled, etc., by both Jews and Christians and therefore only the Qu'ran can be believed. When the Qu'ran and the Bible agree, it's accurate, and when the Qu'ran and the Bible disagree, believe the Qu'ran.

I am not a Muslim so I obviously don't hold that view. You are a Muslim (most likely) so you do hold that view and have a problem with Isaac being the descendant that was favored. There isn't anything else to say because neither of us are going to fully appreciate the other person's point of view/interpretation and instead we're just going to go in circles in trying to argue which book and version is more accurate. Nothing good will come from that.

Thank you for your discussion.

 

[Cheesehead]

This is an amazing thread Game Analyst. I considered being a Catholic apologist as I have a strong desire to defend a faith that has been so good to my friends and family, despite all the hardships this world knows. Fantastic work. I will be checking out your blog.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

What if they are attracted to people of the same sex but do not act on those feelings?

It is wrong because you want them sexually. It is wrong to lust for someone.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

It is wrong because you want them sexually. It is wrong to lust for someone.

So how do you suggest gay people deal with not being able to marry (this is going to change in the U.S.), shouldn't be attracted to someone (you can't control this, sorry), and not being able to act on said attraction? What would you advise a gay person to do when they don't have any outlet for being attracted to who they are?

 

[Demon Ice]

It is wrong because you want them sexually. It is wrong to lust for someone.

This is actually what Christians are taught? You guys are taught to feel guilty for feelings over which you have no control?

Is the "infinite love" part of the thread's title sarcasm or what?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

This is actually what Christians are taught? You guys are taught to feel guilty for feelings over which you have no control?

Is the "infinite love" part of the thread's title sarcasm or what?

The NT basically argues that nobody is perfect. To look at a woman and desire her is to lust after which is a sin. The whole point is that nobody should throw stones at anyone because everybody is guilty at the end of the day. And that God didn't just leave us here hanging in sin but offered a sacrificial lamb so to speak that would (if allowed by us) soak up (symbolically) our sin on his cross so that we could be forgiven.

According to the very message of Christianity while there is sin there is also forgiveness and THAT is the true cornerstone of the faith.

 

[Chaplain]

Question:

Genesis 22:2

Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, whom you love--Isaac--and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you."
(international version 2011)

Wasn't Ishmael the first born of Abraham so wouldnt that apply to him and thus

wouldnt

And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son, whom thou lovest, even Isaac, and get thee into the land of Moriah. And offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
(American Standard Bible)

be more accurate?

Paul answers your question in Galatians 4:21-31:

Tell me, you who want to live under the law, do you know what the law actually says? The Scriptures say that Abraham had two sons, one from his slave wife and one from his freeborn wife. The son of the slave wife was born in a human attempt to bring about the fulfillment of God&#8217;s promise. But the son of the freeborn wife was born as God&#8217;s own fulfillment of his promise.

These two women serve as an illustration of God&#8217;s two covenants. The first woman, Hagar, represents Mount Sinai where people received the law that enslaved them. And now Jerusalem is just like Mount Sinai in Arabia, because she and her children live in slavery to the law. But the other woman, Sarah, represents the heavenly Jerusalem. She is the free woman, and she is our mother. As Isaiah said,

&#8220;Rejoice, O childless woman,
you who have never given birth!
Break into a joyful shout,
you who have never been in labor!
For the desolate woman now has more children
than the woman who lives with her husband!&#8221;

And you, dear brothers and sisters, are children of the promise, just like Isaac. But you are now being persecuted by those who want you to keep the law, just as Ishmael, the child born by human effort, persecuted Isaac, the child born by the power of the Spirit.

But what do the Scriptures say about that? &#8220;Get rid of the slave and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not share the inheritance with the free woman&#8217;s son.&#8221; So, dear brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman; we are children of the free woman.

 

[Demon Ice]

The NT basically argues that nobody is perfect. To look at a woman and desire her is to lust after which is a sin. The whole point is that nobody should throw stones at anyone because everybody is guilty at the end of the day. And that God didn't just leave us here hanging in sin but offered a sacrificial lamb so to speak that would (if allowed by us) soak up (symbolically) our sin on his cross so that we could be forgiven.

According to the very message of Christianity while there is sin there is also forgiveness and THAT is the true cornerstone of the faith.

But lust is something over which you have no control. You cannot physically control when a woman or man causes you to feel lust. So why is something that is outside our control considered a sin worth punishing or seeking atonement for?

 

[Chaplain]

But lust is something over which you have no control. You cannot physically control when a woman or man causes you to feel lust.

You cannot control what they do, but God can give you control if you allow Him to help you at those moments.

"Do not let sin control the way you live; do not give in to sinful desires. Do not let any part of your body become an instrument of evil to serve sin. Instead, give yourselves completely to God, for you were dead, but now you have new life. So use your whole body as an instrument to do what is right for the glory of God. Sin is no longer your master, for you no longer live under the requirements of the law. Instead, you live under the freedom of God&#8217;s grace. Don&#8217;t you realize that you become the slave of whatever you choose to obey? You can be a slave to sin, which leads to death, or you can choose to obey God, which leads to righteous living. Thank God! Once you were slaves of sin, but now you wholeheartedly obey this teaching we have given you. Now you are free from your slavery to sin, and you have become slaves to righteous living. But now you are free from the power of sin and have become slaves of God. Now you do those things that lead to holiness and result in eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord." Romans 6 (multiple verses)

A short summary of this would be Jesus' following statement:

&#8220;If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23

So, at those moments, you die to your feelings/desires/wants, and let Jesus live through you. This is how we have victory over our human desires that are sinful.

 

[Demon Ice]

A short summary of this would be Jesus' following statement:

“If any of you wants to be my follower, you must turn from your selfish ways, take up your cross daily, and follow me." Luke 9:23

So, at those moments, you die to your feelings/desires/wants, and let Jesus live through you. This is how we have victory over our human desires that are sinful.

Why do you suppose we were created in such a way as to allow sinful desires to even affect us, then? Does that not imply imperfection of God's creation?

 

[OldAsUrSock]

But lust is something over which you have no control. You cannot physically control when a woman or man causes you to feel lust. So why is something that is outside our control considered a sin worth punishing or seeking atonement for?

Yes you can.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

But lust is something over which you have no control. You cannot physically control when a woman or man causes you to feel lust. So why is something that is outside our control considered a sin worth punishing or seeking atonement for?

Imagine seeing a fine woman on the street. You look, think she is hot. Now, the problem occurs when after you walk away you keep thinking about her, fantasizing about her, etc. That you have control over, though it's onviously not easy.

Also realize that the big picture for the NT authors is the salvation found in Christ and God's forgiveness of our imperfections through him. It's easy to try and break down every particular sin mentioned in the NT but at the end of the day it's about trying to become a better person through the forgiveness of God and the example set forth in the gospels of Jesus.

 

[Demon Ice]

Yes you can.

Source? Attraction is a biological process, you're telling me there is a way for humans to stop the autonomic release of hormones and neurotransmitters that leads to the feeling we know as lust?

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Source? Attraction is a biological process, you're telling me there is a way for humans to stop the autonomic release of hormones and neurotransmitters that leads to the feeling we know as lust?

It's not so much the first sight but rather the dwelling on and fantasizing of a particular woman/man.

 

[Chaplain]

Why do you suppose we were created in such a way as to allow sinful desires to even affect us, then? Does that not imply imperfection of God's creation?

We were not originally created this way. What you are describing are the effects of sin in a person's body. If you want to see what a person who doesn't sin is like look at Jesus. That is God's model for how human beings were meant to be, and can be if they receive Jesus into their life.

 

[bonesmccoy]

This is actually what Christians are taught?

[and]

Source? Attraction is a biological process, you're telling me there is a way for humans to stop the autonomic release of hormones and neurotransmitters that leads to the feeling we know as lust?

Not in Catholicism. Lust is a specific type of sin separate from (hetero & homo) sexual attraction.

 

[CornBurrito]

It is wrong because you want them sexually. It is wrong to lust for someone.

Then it is impossible to be a true Christian according to you. You claimed that living in sin is incompatible with being Christian. Simply existing will cause you to lust after others. Attraction is a biological process caused by hormones that you cannot control with willpower.

Not in Catholicism. Lust is a specific type of sin separate from (hetero & homo) sexual attraction.

That is not what OldasUrSock is suggesting. He equated attraction (the word I used) with lust. Heck, by his own logic marriage must be an act of lust unless you marry someone you are entirely unattracted to.

Unless of course he only means that homosexual attraction is lustful, while heterosexual attraction does not have to be lustful. In which case I'd need to see the Biblical evidence to support his claim since the scientific consensus does not indicate homosexuality as a conscious choice.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Ok, so you are a Muslim (Jews/Christians don't usually label Abraham as a prophet). There is no point in going forward because Qu'ran argues that the Bible was changed, mishandled, etc., by both Jews and Christians and therefore only the Qu'ran can be believed. When the Qu'ran and the Bible agree, it's accurate, and when the Qu'ran and the Bible disagree, believe the Qu'ran.

I am not a Muslim so I obviously don't hold that view. You are a Muslim (most likely) so you do hold that view and have a problem with Isaac being the descendant that was favored. There isn't anything else to say because neither of us are going to fully appreciate the other person's point of view/interpretation and instead we're just going to go in circles in trying to argue which book and version is more accurate. Nothing good will come from that.

Thank you for your discussion.

Wow so you cannot admit you were wrong. I showed you all the proof above how Bible contradicts itself in this section. I showed over over 10-15 verses which prove my point. You were stuck with the legitimacy of Ishmael even being a legitimate son of Abraham which I have proved to you.

The fact is Abraham had 2 sons. You agree to this fact. Fact also his God said Isaac will have God's covenant and also that Ishmael will the ancestor of a great nation. We have also established the fact that Hagar was given to as a wife to Abraham who he had Ishmael as a legitimate child being a wife.

We have established from Deutronomy that the first born nomatter who it is will have the rights of the first born.

We have also established that Ishmael was part of Abraham's covenant especially when he was circumcised.

Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 years old. 13 years later when Abraham was 99 years old, Isaac was born.

proving the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's first son and ONLY son for 13 years, we thus show that most likely that the verse of Abraham's sacrifice was Ishmael and not Isaac.

Now you argue that Ishmael is not really his son and in fact God never really considers Ishmael as Abraham's son. Then why does God himself call Ishmael 'your SON' in (Gen. 16:16; 17:23,25)

This completely collapses your theory of Ishmael not being a 'son' to Abraham let alone a legitimate one.

The Bible says: "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" (Gen. 17:20).

What did just God promise Abraham? a great Nation will come from Ishmael. Is that proof of legitimacy or illegitimacy of Ishmael being a part of the covenant.

Deuteronomy 23:2 says that an illegitimate child may not enter the Assembly of God even until the Tenth Generation. Yet, Perez was clearly the illegitimate son of Tamar, who sold herself as a harlot to her father-in-law Judah (Genesis 38:24-29). The Bible makes it clear that Judah never married Tamar. Yet, the descendants of Tamar to the Tenth Generation were Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse and King David


Throughout the Book of Genesis, God promises Abraham that his descendants will be of great multitude. God says that he will make Abraham a great nation (Genesis 12:2). God says that the descendants of Abraham shall be as numerous as the dust of the Earth, (Genesis 13:16), and shall be in number as the stars of the sky (Genesis 15:5). God says that Abraham will be a father to many nations (Genesis 17:4) and that his descendants will have the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8).

God makes similar promises about Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac. He tells Hagar that her descendants shall be a great multitude (Genesis 16:10). God tells Abraham that Sarah will be a mother of nations (Genesis 17:16). He says to Abraham that Ishmael will beget 12 princes (Genesis 17:20).

This argument comes up that once Isaac was born the 'SON" status of Ishmael was gone. This is proved wrong by this:

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him (Abraham) in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which {is} before Mamre. Gen. 25:9

Then some Christians argue if infact he was even his son, proved wrong here:

And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. Gen. 16:15

I think its a matter of false pride that some Christians manipulated the translation of the Quran to hammer up Isaac up and hammer down Ishmael to the point of illegitimacy, All of which I have proven to you wrong. Both Isaac and Ishmael were the sons of Abraham. Both were destinated great Nations to their own right. The fact that both were part of Abraham's covenant then proves the son mentioned as the 'only son' is infact Ishmael and not Isaac who was a great Prophet in his own regard but falsely put in the translation.

 

[Demon Ice]

We were not originally created this way. What you are describing are the effects of sin in a person's body. If you want to see what a person who doesn't sin is like look at Jesus. That is God's model for how human beings were meant to be, and can be if they receive Jesus into their life.

That's what I'm saying. Why were our bodies designed in such a way that they could be affected by sin?

Edit:

It's not so much the first sight but rather the dwelling on and fantasizing of a particular woman/man.

So my own private thoughts and fantasies can be considered sinful? Even if I do not act on them in any way, the simple action of dwelling on someone I find to be attractive is considered a sin? That is very thought-police-ish. Not to mention this raises the next question:

How do people get married in a way that is God-approved? How can you decide you want to marry someone without dwelling on them? Unless you're suggesting I should force someone who I am not attracted to and who is not attracted to me, how can you marry someone without having, at some point, lusted after them?

 

[bonesmccoy]

That is not what OldasUrSock is suggesting. He equated attraction (the word I used) with lust. Heck, by his own logic marriage must be an act of lust unless you marry someone you are entirely unattracted to.

I know, that's why I was responding to DI, and not OAUS.

And now DI is getting into the question of humanity's fallen nature!

 

[Demon Ice]

I know, that's why I was responding to DI, and not OAUS.

And now DI is getting into the question of humanity's fallen nature!

No, I'm just wondering why humanity was even capable of "falling" in the first place. This implies that a creation of God is imperfect.

 

[OldAsUrSock]

Then it is impossible to be a true Christian according to you. You claimed that living in sin is incompatible with being Christian. Simply existing will cause you to lust after others. Attraction is a biological process caused by hormones that you cannot control with willpower.



That is not what OldasUrSock is suggesting. He equated attraction (the word I used) with lust. Heck, by his own logic marriage must be an act of lust unless you marry someone you are entirely unattracted to.

Unless of course he only means that homosexual attraction is lustful, while heterosexual attraction does not have to be lustful. In which case I'd need to see the Biblical evidence to support his claim since the scientific consensus does not indicate homosexuality as a conscious choice.

I was not suggesting that. Sorry if it came across that way.

 

[Chaplain]

That's what I'm saying. Why were our bodies designed in such a way that they could be affected by sin?

I don't know. But our bodies were not the only things that were infected with sin.

"Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay." Romans 8:20-21

 

[Demon Ice]

I don't know. But our bodies were not the only things that were infected with sin.

"Against its will, all creation was subjected to God’s curse. But with eager hope, the creation looks forward to the day when it will join God’s children in glorious freedom from death and decay." Romans 8:20-21

That verse makes it sound like God Himself is responsible for sin.

 

[Chaplain]

That verse makes it sound like God Himself is responsible for sin.

Ya, if you just read that verse, I could see that. But we know that sin (death) is Adam's fault for disobeying God's command.

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." Romans 5:12

Had he listened to God, life would have been extremely different for us and the Universe.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Wow so you cannot admit you were wrong. I showed you all the proof above how Bible contradicts itself in this section. I showed over over 10-15 verses which prove my point. You were stuck with the legitimacy of Ishmael even being a legitimate son of Abraham which I have proved to you.

The fact is Abraham had 2 sons. You agree to this fact. Fact also his God said Isaac will have God's covenant and also that Ishmael will the ancestor of a great nation. We have also established the fact that Hagar was given to as a wife to Abraham who he had Ishmael as a legitimate child being a wife.

We have established from Deutronomy that the first born nomatter who it is will have the rights of the first born.

We have also established that Ishmael was part of Abraham's covenant especially when he was circumcised.

Ishmael was born when Abraham was 86 years old. 13 years later when Abraham was 99 years old, Isaac was born.

proving the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's first son and ONLY son for 13 years, we thus show that most likely that the verse of Abraham's sacrifice was Ishmael and not Isaac.

Now you argue that Ishmael is not really his son and in fact God never really considers Ishmael as Abraham's son. Then why does God himself call Ishmael 'your SON' in (Gen. 16:16; 17:23,25)

This completely collapses your theory of Ishmael not being a 'son' to Abraham let alone a legitimate one.

The Bible says: "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" (Gen. 17:20).

What did just God promise Abraham? a great Nation will come from Ishmael. Is that proof of legitimacy or illegitimacy of Ishmael being a part of the covenant.

Deuteronomy 23:2 says that an illegitimate child may not enter the Assembly of God even until the Tenth Generation. Yet, Perez was clearly the illegitimate son of Tamar, who sold herself as a harlot to her father-in-law Judah (Genesis 38:24-29). The Bible makes it clear that Judah never married Tamar. Yet, the descendants of Tamar to the Tenth Generation were Perez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse and King David


Throughout the Book of Genesis, God promises Abraham that his descendants will be of great multitude. God says that he will make Abraham a great nation (Genesis 12:2). God says that the descendants of Abraham shall be as numerous as the dust of the Earth, (Genesis 13:16), and shall be in number as the stars of the sky (Genesis 15:5). God says that Abraham will be a father to many nations (Genesis 17:4) and that his descendants will have the land of Canaan (Genesis 17:8).

God makes similar promises about Hagar, Ishmael and Isaac. He tells Hagar that her descendants shall be a great multitude (Genesis 16:10). God tells Abraham that Sarah will be a mother of nations (Genesis 17:16). He says to Abraham that Ishmael will beget 12 princes (Genesis 17:20).

This argument comes up that once Isaac was born the 'SON" status of Ishmael was gone. This is proved wrong by this:

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him (Abraham) in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which {is} before Mamre. Gen. 25:9

Then some Christians argue if infact he was even his son, proved wrong here:

And Hagar bare Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael. Gen. 16:15

I think its a matter of false pride that some Christians manipulated the translation of the Quran to hammer up Isaac up and hammer down Ishmael to the point of illegitimacy, All of which I have proven to you wrong. Both Isaac and Ishmael were the sons of Abraham. Both were destinated great Nations to their own right. The fact that both were part of Abraham's covenant then proves the son mentioned as the 'only son' is infact Ishmael and not Isaac who was a great Prophet in his own regard but falsely put in the translation.

I have already agreed that Ishmael was a son of Abram. That he was given a great people as well as Isaac. That Hagar was a wife of Abram (not THE wife which was Sara).
You're trying to argue that it was in fact Ishmael who was the sacrifice and not Isaac which basically would help destroy the claims of Judaism and Christianity but support Islam. I get that. You are free to do so. As I pointed out, the Qu'ran argues that where it and the Bible agree on an issue, it's true, but where the Qu'ran and Bible disagree to only trust the Qu'ran. I obviously don't agree with that.

Both Ishmael and Isaac can be sons, both have great civilizations born from them, both be blessed by God, while one is to be the promise that is more favored. This is what both Jews and Christians argue happened with Isaac. That the promise was given to Abram and Sarah.

15Then God said to Abraham, “As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.16“I will bless her, and indeed I will give you a son by her. Then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her.”17Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed, and said in his heart, “Will a child be born to a man one hundred years old? And will Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?”18And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!”19But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.20“As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I will bless him, and will make him fruitful and will multiply him exceedingly. He shall become the father of twelve princes, and I will make him a great nation.21“But My covenant I will establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this season next year.”22When He finished talking with him, God went up from Abraham.

So when you are arguing is that you/ and the Qu'ran don't agree with the Tanakh. For it says that God will establish his covenant with Isaac for an everlasting covenant. You have argued that the writers of the Tanakh changed the text to reflect Isaac which is what the Qu'ran argues at least a thousand years after this was written. Christianity didn't alter any text in this passage. You would argue that Jews did.

If you feel you have proven that the covenant was made with Ishmael that is fine but obviously you are arguing that based on the claim of another religious text which stands to gain quite a bit by claiming it.

 

[Demon Ice]

Ya, if you just read that verse, I could see that. But we know that sin (death) is Adam's fault for disobeying God's command.

"When Adam sinned, sin entered the world. Adam’s sin brought death, so death spread to everyone, for everyone sinned." Romans 5:12

Had he listened to God, life would have been extremely different for us and the Universe.

So why is the entire world being punished for the mistakes of a single man? God is commonly referred to as being both omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing). So doesn't that mean He should have A) known from the start that Adam was going to disobey, and B) been able to punish Adam in such a way that didn't also punish the rest of the (innocent) members of the world?

 

[Dunk#7]

No, I'm just wondering why humanity was even capable of "falling" in the first place. This implies that a creation of God is imperfect.

God did perfectly create beings that had their own free will. If God created individuals that were not capable of sin then He would have created robots that had no choice, but to worship Him. God desires that people choose to worship Him.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

That's what I'm saying. Why were our bodies designed in such a way that they could be affected by sin?

Edit:



So my own private thoughts and fantasies can be considered sinful? Even if I do not act on them in any way, the simple action of dwelling on someone I find to be attractive is considered a sin? That is very thought-police-ish. Not to mention this raises the next question:

How do people get married in a way that is God-approved? How can you decide you want to marry someone without dwelling on them? Unless you're suggesting I should force someone who I am not attracted to and who is not attracted to me, how can you marry someone without having, at some point, lusted after them?

Well realize again that when this text was written the normal way for people to come together was to have arranged marriages. The parents of a female and male would come together and have the two marry. Usually it was to benefit both families. It wasn't about 'attraction'. Now, that obviously isn't how most marriages take place today in the western world.

Also, realize that if God is God and knows all then the very nature of such a being doesn't allow for any 'private' thoughts. He/It/She knows what you were going to think before you were even born. It's one reason I keep harping on the bigger picture. It's easy to get lost at the micro level of what is and isn't a sin but the bigger message of the NT is the hope and forgiveness offered by God.

 

[Demon Ice]

God did perfectly create beings that had their own free will. If God created individuals that were not capable of sin then He would have created robots that had no choice, but to worship Him. God desires that people choose to worship Him.

So He created beings with free will, but then does not want us to use that free will? God created Hell as a punishment for those who did not believe in Him, so that means he has given us free will, but then is actually punishing people for using that same free will?

Also, realize that if God is God and knows all then the very nature of such a being doesn't allow for any 'private' thoughts. He/It/She knows what you were going to think before you were even born. It's one reason I keep harping on the bigger picture. It's easy to get lost at the micro level of what is and isn't a sin but the bigger message of the NT is the hope and forgiveness offered by God.

So then why even bother preaching forgiveness and trying to convert people to Christianity? God knows I was going to sin before I was even born, I clearly have no choice or control in the matter.

Why do so many Christians speak out against homosexuality? If homosexuals are behaving in a way that is predetermined by God, doesn't that mean that Christians are actually speaking out against their own God when they try to prevent a homosexual couple from marrying or having equal rights?

 

[CornBurrito]

Another question open to the people in this thread:

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution in your opinion?

 

[Maninthemirror]

I have already agreed that Ishmael was a son of Abram. That he was given a great people as well as Isaac. That Hagar was a wife of Abram (not THE wife which was Sara).
You're trying to argue that it was in fact Ishmael who was the sacrifice and not Isaac which basically would help destroy the claims of Judaism and Christianity but support Islam. I get that. You are free to do so. As I pointed out, the Qu'ran argues that where it and the Bible agree on an issue, it's true, but where the Qu'ran and Bible disagree to only trust the Qu'ran. I obviously don't agree with that.

Both Ishmael and Isaac can be sons, both have great civilizations born from them, both be blessed by God, while one is to be the promise that is more favored. This is what both Jews and Christians argue happened with Isaac. That the promise was given to Abram and Sarah.



So when you are arguing is that you/ and the Qu'ran don't agree with the Tanakh. For it says that God will establish his covenant with Isaac for an everlasting covenant. You have argued that the writers of the Tanakh changed the text to reflect Isaac which is what the Qu'ran argues at least a thousand years after this was written. Christianity didn't alter any text in this passage. You would argue that Jews did.

If you feel you have proven that the covenant was made with Ishmael that is fine but obviously you are arguing that based on the claim of another religious text which stands to gain quite a bit by claiming it.

A wife is a wife is a wife. A son is a son is a son. Its as simple as that. Albeit I have proved that there might be a big flaw in Bible's argument of Isaac was the 'only son'. Flaws are made by men not God. The whole story sticks to the argument that somehow Isaac is legitimate because of 'Sarah' even though he had a second wife too. The story in the bible collapses from it's own verses and words of God. Man made translations cannot escape what God has said. Regardless the proof is in the Bible itself that both Ishmael and Isaac are part of Abraham's covenant. To Argue that Ishmael is not part of Abraham's covenant itself goes against Christianity's original teachings and Judaism.

The disagreement is not with the Tanakh its with the biblical translation favoritism of one son of Abraham when both were part of his covenant. There was no use of God telling Hagar and Abraham both that Ishmael's people will have a great nation if it would NOT have a great nation

 

[Demon Ice]

Another question open to the people in this thread:

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution in your opinion?

Also, before you answer this, please make sure you actually understand what evolution is.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

A wife is a wife is a wife. A son is a son is a son. Its as simple as that. Albeit I have proved that there might be a big flaw in Bible's argument of Isaac was the 'only son'. Flaws are made by men not God. The whole story sticks to the argument that somehow Isaac is legitimate because of 'Sarah' even though he had a second wife too. The story in the bible collapses from it's own verses and words of God. Man made translations cannot escape what God has said. Regardless the proof is in the Bible itself that both Ishmael and Isaac are part of Abraham's covenant. To Argue that Ishmael is not part of Abraham's covenant itself goes against Christianity's original teachings and Judaism.

Well, that is where you are wrong. In the Bible a son isn't a son isn't a son. There are favorites. See Jacob over Esau, Joseph over all of his brothers, see David of his brothers. Jesus is called first begotten son even though the word used for begotten doesn't signify literal birth but preeminence. For Christians and Jews the same goes for Isaac. He was the favored one since as the verse I showed it was through him that God would continue his covenant.

The passage I provided doesn't use the word covenant in regards to Ishmael. Ishmael was blessed by God for Abram but the covenant itself isn't shared by Ishmael according to Scripture.

Another question open to the people in this thread:

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution in your opinion?

Yes. I fully accept evolution as the way humanity has come forward. As has the Catholic Church and many other Christian organizations.

 

[Asimov]

Another question open to the people in this thread:

Can you be Christian and believe in evolution in your opinion?

In my humble opinion.. I believe in God, of course.

But I do not see a problem/conflict between believing in God and science. I don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

God made the Universe with rules. He created every element and physical forces. Everything happened by Him. So, the Big Bang, the creation of planets, stars... God did it with rules.

But the only thing I do not believe is evolution. I just can't. Humans are special to God and He created us like we are now.

 

[Chaplain]

So why is the entire world being punished for the mistakes of a single man?

People are not judged for that. Each person is judged for the sins they commit in their own life, and for either rejecting or accepting God's pardon for their sins.

God is commonly referred to as being both omnipotent (all powerful) and omniscient (all knowing). So doesn't that mean He should have A) known from the start that Adam was going to disobey, and B) been able to punish Adam in such a way that didn't also punish the rest of the (innocent) members of the world?

1. God knew, but still allowed Adam to live his life, and mess up. Had Adam not been given the choice to choose, to love God back by obeying Him, he would have been a robot and not known what it is to be alive.

2. He could have, but He didn't. I do not know why, and the Bible doesn't say why. So, I am sorry I can't answer this better.

 

[CornBurrito]

Yes. I fully accept evolution as the way humanity has come forward. As has the Catholic Church and many other Christian organizations.

I'm just wondering how evolution is compatible with the things Game Analyst is positing (that humans once had perfect bodies, etc...). Though I'm guessing he's fringe?

In my humble opinion.. I believe in God, of course.

But I do not see a problem/conflict between believing in God and science. I don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

God made the Universe with rules. He created every element and physical forces. Everything happened by Him. So, the Big Bang, the creation of planets, stars... God did it with rules.

But the only thing I do not believe is evolution. I just can't. Humans are special to God and He created us like we are now.

I'm afraid that you aren't seeing something right in front of your face. The religious belief that scientists were just discovering the rules and systems god created is compatible with science, but ceases to be compatible if you then decide to throw out an entire tenant of modern biological science because you find those rules incompatible with your current belief.

I'm interested in how you believe in the Big Bang which posits an old Earth when the Biblical text suggests a young Earth no older than a few thousand years.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Well, that is where you are wrong. In the Bible a son isn't a son isn't a son. There are favorites. See Jacob over Esau, Joseph over all of his brothers, see David of his brothers. Jesus is called first begotten son even though the word used for begotten doesn't signify literal birth but preeminence. For Christians and Jews the same goes for Isaac. He was the favored one since as the verse I showed it was through him that God would continue his covenant.

The passage I provided doesn't use the word covenant in regards to Ishmael. Ishmael was blessed by God for Abram but the covenant itself isn't shared by Ishmael according to Scripture.



Yes. I fully accept evolution as the way humanity has come forward. As has the Catholic Church and many other Christian organizations.

Your theory of covenance collapses here

Genesis 15:18: "... saying Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the Euphrates." Doesn't the greater part of Arabia lie between the Nile and the Euphrates, where all the descendants of Ishmael settled at a later date?

Do you see also the difference that Abraham was called "a stranger" in Canaan but not in the land between the Nile and the Euphrates? As a Chaldean, he was more Arab than Jew.

That covenant was made with Abraham and Ishmael:

Genesis 17:10 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.

Genesis 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

 

[Chaplain]

I'm just wondering how evolution is compatible with the things Game Analyst is positing (that humans once had perfect bodies, etc...). Though I'm guessing he's fringe?

I am actually writing a research paper on something similar for my Anthropology class right now.

What do you mean by fringe?

 

[CornBurrito]

I am actually writing a research paper on something similar for my Anthropology class right now.

What do you mean by fringe?

Fringe as in, not associated with the most common denominations.

 

[Demon Ice]

In my humble opinion.. I believe in God, of course.

But I do not see a problem/conflict between believing in God and science. I don't see the relation between believing in God and science.

God made the Universe with rules. He created every element and physical forces. Everything happened by Him. So, the Big Bang, the creation of planets, stars... God did it with rules.

But the only thing I do not believe is evolution. I just can't. Humans are special to God and He created us like we are now.

So then you do not understand science at all. Your entire attitude of "I can believe this but not that because of my feelings" is directly antithetical to the most basic scientific thought, as is believing that humans are somehow exempt from the physical laws of the universe.

Also, your bolded statement is in direct contradiction to what Game Analyst has said about humans once being created perfect.

If you believe that God created us as we are now, then that means He created us knowingly and willingly with the capacity to sin and be affected by sin.

Edit: And if you'd like to see the issues that arise when people of religion try to influence science, look at the religious opposition to embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, and abortion.

2. He could have, but He didn't. I do not know why, and the Bible doesn't say why. So, I am sorry I can't answer this better.

Thank you for at least admitting when you don't have the answer to something.

 

[Chaplain]

Fringe as in, not associated with the most common denominations.

Correct. No denomination for my wife and I.

 

[Chaplain]

Also, your bolded statement is in direct contradiction to what Game Analyst has said about humans once being created perfect.

He created them with innocence, not perfection. Had they been perfect, they wouldn't have sinned. Jesus was perfect, but He never sinned. Hope you can see the difference between innocent, and perfect from my example.

Thank you for at least admitting when you don't have the answer to something.

Your welcome. If I lied to you for saying something that wasn't true, I would be dishonoring God by misrepresenting Him to you. I do not want to do that.