Genesis 16 & 21 - Ishmael or Isaac was put up for sacrifice?

[davidb87]

We know it says that Isaac was put up for the sacrifice, in the same verse it says "Your only son". Yes I do believe the bible has been edited many times over the centuries (I am very open minded and have done my research)

So could it have been that they added Isaacs name in the verse?
The way the verse is written, it looks like that has been possible.

Because it does say Abrahams Only son, and the only time Abraham had an Only son was when Ishmael was his only son.

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."

The way "Isaac" was inserted into scripture, it sounds like it was added as a "Thought" by people who have written the bible.


Let me know what you think. thanks
-
Why I ask this, Because this is important knowledge that one must know if studying your religion and history.
Also was having a discussion with a muslim who claims Ishmael was the one sacrificed as the quran claims, and tried proving it using my bible and his quran as a confirmation.

 

[Tintin]

We know it says that Isaac was put up for the sacrifice, in the same verse it says "Your only son". Yes I do believe the bible has been edited many times over the centuries (I am very open minded and have done my research)

So could it have been that they added Isaacs name in the verse?
The way the verse is written, it looks like that has been possible.

Because it does say Abrahams Only son, and the only time Abraham had an Only son was when Ishmael was his only son.

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."

The way "Isaac" was inserted into scripture, it sounds like it was added as a "Thought" by people who have written the bible.


Let me know what you think. thanks
-
Why I ask this, Because this is important knowledge that one must know if studying your religion and history.
Also was having a discussion with a muslim who claims Ishmael was the one sacrificed as the quran claims, and tried proving it using my bible and his quran as a confirmation.

Yes, you and every non-Christian and progressive Christian biblical scholar and theologian believes that the Bible has been severely edited, many times over, throughout history. You know the cool thing though? That doesn't make it true. I would caution you not to have too open a mind, lest your brains fall out. I think very little of your theory. Personal feelings do not make for good exegesis.

So, you've done your research? Please present these findings from reputable sources eg. the History Channel isn't reputable. I honestly think you're barking up the wrong tree. You'd make better use of your time by listening to Holy Spirit and to people who know what they're talking about, rather than to people who are trying to discredit the Bible at every turn. There are a lot of voices crying out in the wilderness. Make sure you're listening to the right voice.

In short, no. I believe Isaac has always been the one whom Abraham was going to sacrifice to God.

 

[KJV1611]

Isaac was Abraham's only son. Ismael was not Abraham's son, he was Abram's son. There is a big difference between Abram and Abraham. Abram is the father of the flesh but Abraham is the father of the promise.

 

[Angela53510]

First, this is a Christian forum. We believe the Bible. We don't believe anything was added or changed in the Torah.

Second, I have always laughed about the way Muslims want to substitute Ishmael for Isaac.

Because the rest of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc - (as in the whole Bible) are about the sons of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not about Ishmael. And yet the Muslims profess that the Torah or first 5 books of the bible are right, not edited. Well, except for the Ishmael part.

It simply doesn't make sense, that Ishmael was the son almost sacrificed. He was illegitimate. He is not talked about ever again, except when Sarah casts them out, and God saves them. End of Ishmael story.

The Bible is about Isaac, and his son Jacob, and his sons, all 12 of them. And their sons, down to David, and to Jesus in the New Testament. Maybe you might try reading Genesis, etc and you will see the answer as plain as day!

Now, the question is, do you know that God can save you? Please pm me if you want to understand how God sent Jesus Christ to save us from our sins, which was prophesied in the Bible from Genesis till the fulfillment in the New Testament.

 

[MarcR]

We know it says that Isaac was put up for the sacrifice, in the same verse it says "Your only son". Yes I do believe the bible has been edited many times over the centuries (I am very open minded and have done my research)

So could it have been that they added Isaacs name in the verse?
The way the verse is written, it looks like that has been possible.

Because it does say Abrahams Only son, and the only time Abraham had an Only son was when Ishmael was his only son.

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."

The way "Isaac" was inserted into scripture, it sounds like it was added as a "Thought" by people who have written the bible.


Let me know what you think. thanks
-
Why I ask this, Because this is important knowledge that one must know if studying your religion and history.
Also was having a discussion with a muslim who claims Ishmael was the one sacrificed as the quran claims, and tried proving it using my bible and his quran as a confirmation.

Hagar was Egyptian, and a slave. The son of a foreign slave did not have the status of son unless adopted.

Abraham would have accepted Ishmael as his heir and son had God not told him that Isaac was to be his heir.

We are specifically told that Isaac accompanied Abraham up the mountain.

 

[KJV1611]

Hagar was Egyptian, and a slave. The son of a foreign slave did not have the status of son unless adopted.

Abraham would have accepted Ishmael as his heir and son had God not told him that Isaac was to be his heir.

Why do you think the bible calls Isaac Abraham's only son?

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Let me know what you think. thanks

...........

 

[saintandrew4life]

Yes it was Isaac that Abraham was going to sacrid ice.

 

[PennEd]

Why do you think the bible calls Isaac Abraham's only son?

Issac is a model or similitude of Jesus. Some scholars believe he was to be sacrificed on the exact spot Jesus was to be crucified. Abraham broke the model when he begat Ishmael. From God's perspective, Isaac was his ONLY son. Ishmael represents man's attempt work his way to God. God said HE would supply a Son through Rachel. They didn't quite believe God, so they took matters into their own hand. Bad things happen when we do this instead of trusting and waiting on the Lord.

 

[crossnote]

We know it says that Isaac was put up for the sacrifice, in the same verse it says "Your only son". Yes I do believe the bible has been edited many times over the centuries (I am very open minded and have done my research)

So could it have been that they added Isaacs name in the verse?
The way the verse is written, it looks like that has been possible.

Why are you so ready to believe the higher critics of the Bible and not the bible itself?
If you believe the Bible has been edited supply proof or list this in the Conspiracy Room.

Isaac was his only son..the only son Abraham had received by promise...the other Ishmael was by Abraham's and Sarah's own conniving with their maid.

 

[MarcR]

Why do you think the bible calls Isaac Abraham's only son?

You might notice that I was responding to davidb87 before I was aware of your post.

I concede that you said essentially the same thing first. Perhaps I should read through a thread before responding; but I don't have time for that.

 

[MarcR]

Hagar was Egyptian, and a slave. The son of a foreign slave did not have the status of son unless adopted.

Abraham would have accepted Ishmael as his heir and son had God not told him that Isaac was to be his heir.

We are specifically told that Isaac accompanied Abraham up the mountain.

Please excuse an off topic thought.

In Hebrew, Isaac's name is Yeetscach. English has sufficient letters to capture all those sounds. If those sounds make us uncomfortable; why not translate instead of botching a transliteration. Isaac's name is Laughter.

 

[Galahad]

We know it says that Isaac was put up for the sacrifice, in the same verse it says "Your only son". Yes I do believe the bible has been edited many times over the centuries (I am very open minded and have done my research)

So could it have been that they added Isaacs name in the verse?
The way the verse is written, it looks like that has been possible.

Because it does say Abrahams Only son, and the only time Abraham had an Only son was when Ishmael was his only son.

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."

The way "Isaac" was inserted into scripture, it sounds like it was added as a "Thought" by people who have written the bible.


Let me know what you think. thanks
-
Why I ask this, Because this is important knowledge that one must know if studying your religion and history.
Also was having a discussion with a muslim who claims Ishmael was the one sacrificed as the quran claims, and tried proving it using my bible and his quran as a confirmation.

As stated already by others in this thread, only son refers to the heir of the promise. I forget the name of the servant's son in Abraham's house, but that son (being born of one of Abraham's servants) was not the heir of the promise.

Abraham and his maid Hagar were parents of Ishmael, but he is not the heir.

Abraham and his wife Sarah in their old and nonbearing age have a son. He's the only son. Kill him, and there's no seed. No great nation. No Israelites. No tribe of Judah. No Jesse, No David, No Jesus!

I have no idea if you believe the bible is inspired or not. Perhaps I missed some indication in your OP.

Your question actually affords opportunity here to present a powerful fact regarding the bible. I'll try to be clear as possible.

For your sake, let's use Ishmael in place of Isaac.

What happens?

The result is destruction to an otherwise most harmonious, credible, consistent account running through all 66 books of the bible.
Along side that, the Ishmael substitute to Isaac ignores the facts. In other the mere idea of substituting Ishmael tells me the Muslim is ignorant about the bible.

Fact is, Isaac was the son of promise. Through him and his descendants the son of David, the Messiah, the Savior would be born.

Matthew, whose familiarity supersedes your knowledge, your Muslim's knowledge, and my knowledge did list Isaac and not Ishmael in the genealogy of Jesus. Matthew 1:2.

Luke, whose searching and inquiry concerning things most surely believed, whose unfeigned and non-prejudicial search for truth supersedes your Muslim's by a thousand fold, and whose familiarity was as Matthew's, did list Isaac and not Ishmael in the genealogy related to Jesus. Luke 3:34.

Not only did Luke list Isaac in the genealogy, but Luke takes it for granted that Isaac and not Ishmael belongs in the Israelite history record. Acts 7:8.

Furthermore, Stephen in his speech to the Sanhedrin said clearly that Isaac and not Ishmael belongs in the Israelite history record. Stephen believed it was Isaac and not Ishmael. The Sanhedrin surely heard Stephen say Abraham begat ISAAC and ISAAC begat Jacob and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs. ISAAC, not Ismael.

Then there's allegory in Galatians. Isaac and Ishmael. Substituting Ishmael for Isaac ruins the allegory and its lesson. Read Galatians 4:22-31. Read it. It sheds light on your Muslim's question.

Paul the Jew, the Pharisee, of the tribe of Benjamin, had more knowledge, more understanding than you and I and your Muslim's combined about the matter. Paul wrote the analogy in Galatians. If you are sincere, you will read Galatians 4:22-31. Putting in Ishmael into the Genesis record completely destroys the analogy in Galatians.

Please also see Romans 4:17-25; Hebrew 11:14; et. al.

Take note of the oft occurring phrase by the bible writers: "The God of our fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. Not the God of our fathers "....the God of Ishmael...."

Hear Jesus, "But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,I am the God of Abraham, and the God of ISAAC, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living."

NOTE: Persecution against Christians only causes Christianity to spread, Acts 8. And history proves as much.
Likewise, attacks, criticisms, challenges upon the bible have a positive side.

If the bible was not inspired by God and not under His Almighty Providential Hand the Muslims would have had a good chance of inserting Ishmael into the text. And it would not have made one bit of difference. Why? Because it would have already been a convoluted mess of a story. If at all in existence. It would have been a repair job. Kinda like a patch in a flat tire.

Instead, the story of Abraham and Isaac is valid and supported by other books of the bible. You know, the bible story is delicate. It really is. You change one item and the story changes. It becomes a mess. Not just one item in one story, but one item in the hundreds of stories. They all work together. They rely on each other. They harmonize.

So I say to you and your Muslim. Keep the attacks/the questions coming. It gives great opportunity for the truth to shine.

Hope this helps.

 

[Magenta]

Why do you think the bible calls Isaac Abraham's only son?

It is because Isaac is the son of promise to Abraham and Sarah, not the son they had through a surrogate handmaid when they took matters into their own hands, while waiting for God to fulfill His promise to them, but the son God actually promised Abraham through the barren womb of Sarah when she was well past child bearing years.

 

[KJV1611]

It is because Isaac is the son of promise to Abraham and Sarah, not the son they had through a surrogate handmaid when they took matters into their own hands, while waiting for God to fulfill His promise to them, but the son God actually promised Abraham through the barren womb of Sarah when she was well past child bearing years.

Yep I agree. Don't you love the way God wrote the bible, he confounds the wisdom of the wise with His writing style. In one place he says Abraham had two sons and in another place he calls Isaac Abraham's only son. Every time I run across verses like that I'm in awe of the shear perfection and accuracy of the word of God.

The people who believe the bible isn't perfect assume an error, but His children get understanding above and beyond what's actually written down on the pages.... Abraham was Isaac and Ishmael's physical father but Abraham was also Isaacs spiritual father i.e. he lead Isaac to the Lord. I love that book, nothing like it on earth!

 

[JimmieD]

We know it says that Isaac was put up for the sacrifice, in the same verse it says "Your only son". Yes I do believe the bible has been edited many times over the centuries (I am very open minded and have done my research)

So could it have been that they added Isaacs name in the verse?
The way the verse is written, it looks like that has been possible.

Because it does say Abrahams Only son, and the only time Abraham had an Only son was when Ishmael was his only son.

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."

The way "Isaac" was inserted into scripture, it sounds like it was added as a "Thought" by people who have written the bible.


Let me know what you think. thanks
-
Why I ask this, Because this is important knowledge that one must know if studying your religion and history.
Also was having a discussion with a muslim who claims Ishmael was the one sacrificed as the quran claims, and tried proving it using my bible and his quran as a confirmation.

It seems you would have to have a specific reason to say that the text was originally about Ishmael rather than Isaac. I don't think saying, "...because the bible has been edited over the years" really qualifies as a reason. I don't see the reasoning either for supposing that Isaac was inserted as an after thought.

Gen 22:2 seems to add to the solemnness of the situation rather than being added as an afterthought. I think you can almost see the interaction between Abraham and God:

God: Take your son.....
Abe: Which one?
God: ...your unique son....
Abe: They're both unique - you've blessed them both!
God: ...the one you love..
Abe: I love them both!
God: ....Isaac.

It reads to me almost as if God realizes which one Abraham favors most, knows what his objections will be, and gets specific with Abraham. With every description God adds to the command, the more challenging it becomes for Abraham.

As far as I know, there is no sustainable reason to think that it was originally Ishmael rather than Isaac. I suppose one argument for it being Ishmael could be that Ishmael was actually Abraham's firstborn, and according to custom (such as the sacrificial system in ancient Israel), it would be the first born that would be presented as a sacrifice, not the second born. But I think it's important to note that being the "firstborn" probably doesn't necessarily denote the first in a sequence, but has more to do with being first in rank, importance, and who will receive the father's inheritance.

The modern scholarship reading of this, based on the Documentary Hypothesis, doesn't argue that it was actually Ishmael rather than Isaac, though there are some that use the Documentary Hypothesis to argue that Abraham actually carried out the sacrifice and so actually killed Isaac (eg, Richard Elliott Friedman).

 

[Tintin]

Ah, I wouldn't bother even mentioning the Documentary Hypothesis. There's less evidence going for it than even evolutionary storytelling.

 

[Magenta]

Ishmael is a son through the working of flesh.

Isaac is a son through the working of Spirit.

God's plan and design is seen through the working of Spirit.

Isaac's sacrificial death being supplanted by a lamb supplied by God
is a foreshadowing of Christ's death on the cross. Some believe the
mountain to be the same one where Jesus was crucified.

 

[crossnote]

Ah, I wouldn't bother even mentioning the Documentary Hypothesis. There's less evidence going for it than even evolutionary storytelling.

But it sounds so 'intellectual' it must be true.

 

[oldhermit]

Abraham also had six other sons. Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah