So it�s admitted that Isaac was the �only son� of Abraham through Sarah but yet he still refutes it. That is exactly what the verse is saying to its readers and that�s all I was saying. But, for Muslims they feel slighted since Ishmael was left out of everything imaginable. Get over it! Esau and other first born in the Bible were left out of their inheritance as well. That is the price they had to pay for their error. Abraham got over it! Even Hagar got over it! Why cannot Muslims? For the simple reason as I stated in the outset, they need Ishmael to be the child of sacrifice instead of Isaac, which by the way is the BIGGEST plagiarism in existence today; the Koran copying that Bible account of Abraham and then changing the name from Isaac being the child of sacrifice to Ishmael.  

But, what else is there? Without Ishmael, Islam loses its roots and identity. And without that they have no prophet and no Koran, which means they have no future, much like Ishmael. But, that is the least of their worries.   

Revelation 22:18 �I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll;

Islamispeace statement was and I quote �The problem is that the verse simply says �take your son, your only son�� without mentioning Sarah.�

Seriously, that�s their hang up, �without mentioning Sarah� really? Does the Koran Mention Ishmael as the child of sacrifice? No! But, their hang up is the Bible say�s �only son� without mentioning Sarah. Why would the Bible have to unless there was some foul intentions? Everyone knew Isaac belonged to Sarah and Abraham, even you as was admitted. Why didn�t the Koran mention Ishmael if it was truly him? Why didn�t Hagar mention it since she was the mother of Ishmael? Your denial may cost you. But, like Ahmed Deedat and other Muslim debaters they put the blame on the Bible rather than their Koran when it is Muslims who say it was Ishmael not Jews or Christians. Their line or reasoning is warp and suspect at BEST!

But, even in your own defense your references mentions exactly what I said before in point #5 . . .

Point 5 It was after Hagar and Ishmael was dismissed from Abraham�s household the promise and or covenant was made, who at that time the �only� son of Abraham and Sarah was Isaac.  

***Your own references said ��Consequently, when God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son (2 i 11), Isaac is quite literally�the only son the patriarch has.��***

Did you catch that? �Isaac is quite literally�the �only son� �.This is your references not mine. Case PROVEN once again!

Next, in an even more desperate attempt he uses Jewish apocalyptic literature. Apocryphal and Pseudepigrapha (literally meaning �falsely attributed writings�) books that were never accepted as canonical  as his primary reference tool. Books that promote astrology and angel worship and written by Jewish Theorist. Books full of unfulfilled prophecies. Books such as �The Assumption of Moses,� �The Apocalypse of Ezra� and the �Book of Jubilees.� This is really your best proof of alterations? Seriously? None of the Bible writers ever mention any of these books or authors by name, not even Jesus but obviously these books are your only line of defense. 

And even in this sad attempt regarding the term only son, your references didn�t say Ishmael was the child of sacrifice. Whereas some of the Muslims scholars that I provided indeed said it was Isaac, so you can�t get more conclusive then that.   

But, again it does show zealousness to promote falsehood just like your hero Ahmed Deedat. Islamispeace then went on to say and I quote �Common sense would indicate that this verse makes no sense since Ishmael was also Abraham�s son. the Christian has failed thus far to offer a reasonable clarification�

So answer this question islamispeace, from a Muslims point of view where is the common sense in the Koran omitting Ishmael as the child of sacrifice? It is clear as the Bible noted and as was admitted, Isaac was the �only son� of Abraham by wife Sarah. On the other hand it is Muslims who desperately need Ishmael not Jews or Christian�s, a FACT that seems to escape the Muslim community. I don�t know who Muslims have talked to in the past regarding this subject but it is this Ahmed Deedat syndrome or this narcissistic approach of the Bible (a preoccupation on how much the Bible is wrong and the Koran correct) that prevents Muslims as a whole from moving forward, a trait that was exhibited in Ishmael from long ago.        

To sum it all up, islamispeace does admit that there were  disagreement among Muslim scholars where some of them believe Isaac was the son of sacrifice and not Ishmael. So, there are no contradictions as far as those Muslim scholars are concern and they didn�t need to resort to Jewish apocalyptic literature to disprove it.   

What actually is islamispeace trying to promote on his blog, more allegations of the inconsistencies and contradictions of the Bible, using unsubstantiated evidence to support his lack of knowledge of the Genesis account of Abraham and his household. It�s alarming to say the least that the Koran has left the Muslim community as a whole guessing and coming to its own conclusion as to why the term �only son� was used toward Isaac in the scriptures, when in fact it would have easily been resolved if the Koran�s message were more decisive and convincing. As demonstrated in this topic, a Muslim first line of defense is always to discredit the scriptures and say they were corrupted especially where it shows favor to Abraham and Isaac, this animosity continue to exist down till this day.

The Koran is the first Holy book for Muslims. However, it is the Koran that is very vague and omits any promises giving to Ishmael through Abraham, not the Bible. Muslims claim Muhammad as a descendant of Ishmael. The scriptures on the other hand are very clear on who will carry on Abraham�s legacy and who will fight against it

In his first blog �The Islamic story� Ishmael name IS NOT MENTIONED as a child of sacrifice by Abraham in both the Bible and the Koran. So what is the Muslim community�s opinion since no name is mentioned? It is divided so they blame the Bible for allegedly being corrupted. But, why isn�t it clear in the Koran since it is clear in the Bible that Isaac was the �only son� of ABRAHAM  and SARAH and that Ishmael was disowned and dismissed also making Isaac the only son in his household and of sacrifice? Are Muslims trying to guess and distract this account away? Does it take the emotional whim of Islamic commentators to write the wrong of the Koran for leaving it out? THIS IS A MAJOR BLONDER! After providing conclusive evidence of Islamic scholars saying that it was indeed Isaac, what was the response?

islamispeace wrote: It is well known that these verses deal with the birth of Ishmael (peace be upon him), as the [vast majority] of Quranic commentators have stated.

He say�s a vast majority. Well, faith minded people all over the world find it amazing that Muhammad or the Koran had not stated it, only the commentators who came after the messenger! Did the angel recite to them as well? This is his first blog and his first line defense to disprove the �Biblical Story� of Isaac being the only son of Abraham by Sarah and the only son in Abraham�s household to be offered up.

islamispeace wrote: From the internal evidence, it is clear that he was indeed a very young child, possibly even an infant. According to the Hadiths, this is exactly what Ishmael (peace be upon him) was at the time of this incident:

The Hadiths, why wasn�t the Koran clear on? So, another source outside has to be used because of the Koran manipulation of the Biblical account, not having any time frame or location as does the Bible. Right from the start how do we know Ishmael was already a teenager?

Gen 17:24, 25 Abraham was 99 years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised. And Ish′ma�el his son was 13 years old when he had the flesh of his foreskin circumcised.

What happened five years after that? Let�s do the math.

Gen 21:8, 9 Now the child grew and was weaned, and Abraham prepared a big feast on the day that Isaac was weaned. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/1001061105/522 - -   But Sarah kept noticing that the son of Ha′gar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, was mocking Isaac

In providing the detail, Ishmael was nineteen yrs. old! The Koran conveniently left out these important details. But, why is a nineteen yr. old young man bullying his little brother? We can began to see exactly why Hagar and Ishmael was legally dismissed and disowned personally by Elohim, leaving Isaac as the �only son� left behind with his natural parents Abraham and Sarah.  

Does the Koran support Muslims allegations of the contradictions in the Bible of Abraham getting ready to offer up Isaac as a sacrifice? If you notice, it does not, why?

Because the Koran intentionally omitted these details to promote Islam and Muhammad as its messenger. Does the koran say Ishmael was the son that was going to be sacrificed? Of course not it changed the whole story around and left things out. Surely that would have given the koran�s account some sort of credibility, at least to start off with but it doesn�t. So, to distract its followers from knowing the truth, let�s distort the Genesis account by changing the names and say the Bible is corrupted. Why? Base on the Ahmed Deedat syndrome, here it is once again . . .

islamispeace wrote: Clearly, both the Bible and Islamic sources describe Ishmael (peace be upon him) as a helpless infant when he was sent out with his mother. The only difference is that the Biblical story is chronologically flawed and self-contradictory.

The Bible as I have shown above shows Ishmael to be a teenager (Gen 17:24, 25) Why does the Koran need Islamic sources to prove that he was not a teenager, was it recited to Muhammad or to them? Is it because the Koran lacks sufficient logical evidence? Because of your lack of research this and your remaining blogs went downhill from there. How does he conclude this blog?

islamispeace wrote: Therefore, the Biblical version suffers from serious contradictions and can only be the result of textual tampering.

Contradictions according to who, the Hadiths? All I can say is ignorance is bliss, especially since the Koran is a book for Muslims and Muhammad is its [messenger.] Yet it is silent on the most fundamental teachings of Abraham inheritance to a promised miracle son. But, it does draws attention to the way Islamic commentators defend their beliefs. They take a narcissistic approach, if it�s not spelled out in a way they think it should be spelled out or explained in the Koran or Hadith the Bible is wrong. Here�s another example . . .    

islamispeace wrote: � the verse in question does not say �take your son, your only son [with Sarah]��� .

And for this reason it is false? This is pretty much the same approach as Ahmed Deedat and other would be debaters and apologetics. As you can see, they have a very, very, very strong sense of personal preference on how verses in the Bible are supposed to be written since they disagree with it. How self-centered and self-indulgent is that approach to the Holy Scriptures? Yet, the Koran has failed and fallen short on the account of Abraham promises and blessings through Isaac, Jacob and eventually Jesus, the promised seed and messiah. Obviously, this would be the first and foremost mistake of anyone whose faith is based on a shaky foundation as the Koran and those who supposedly were used by Allah to establish it.

This brings us to the phrase that was used; �common sense.� Since Muslims grossly MIS-Understand and thus in turn MIS-Interpret the term �only son� it is in their altered ego the scriptures are corrupted. Let us go into it further by discussing Isaac�s unique position and why he is singled out not only in  the Bible but believe it or not also in the Koran.    

In the scriptures a conversation was addressed to Abraham that a promised child would be born to Sarah through a miracle birth; let�s examine both the Bible and Koran to see who the promised son was; not sons of Abraham but the promised SON of Abraham.

Gen. 17:15, 16 Then God said to Abraham: �As for your wife Sar′ai, you must not call her Sar′ai, because Sarah will become her name. http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/1001061105/413 - -   I will bless her and also give you a [son] by her; I will bless her and she will become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.� Gen 18: 9-15

Compare Surah 11:69-73, 37:112-113, 51:24-30

Perhaps someone can tell me where Ishmael is singled out as a promised son and born through a miracle birth?

Isaac�s and Isaac�s descendants would inherit an inheritance that was given to Abraham; Ishmael would not receive any of the inheritance given to Abraham. Gen 13:14-18 15:18-21 28:13, 14!

Perhaps someone can tell me where in the Koran is Ishmael and his descendants primarily singled out and lined up for future blessings? How did Ishmael handle this rejection? The animosity Ishmael had toward Isaac was handed down to his descendants; even to the extent of hating the God of Abraham in Psalms 83:2, 5-6. Muhammad claims to be a descendant of Ishmael. If I were you I would read this!

For look! Your enemies are in an uproar; those who hate you act arrogantly, They have made an alliance against you, 6 The tents of E′dom and the Ish′ma�el�ites,

Furthermore, the blessings that were given to Isaac were because of the promise by Elohim to Abraham and Sarah. As I explained earlier, because of Ishmael�s bullying Isaac Ishmael and Hagar was force to leave, being legally dismissed and disowned from the family and legally dismissed from ALL of Abraham�s inheritance, thus the term �only son� would also be applied here. In fact, when this statement was first uttered in Genesis 22:2, it was AFTER Ishmael was DISOWNED, BANNED and no longer legally part of the family. The Koran agrees with this fact as well because Ishmael�s only return was to bury his father. There is no record of Ishmael being buried in the cave of Machpelah, the place of burial for Abraham and Isaac, along with their wives.

What also made being the �only son� a unique experience to just Isaac through Abraham and Sarah? He received the honor and blessings from �El Shaddai�! So, we ask again, what harm was done in the Koran by intentionally leaving out the name of the child of sacrifice in order to manipulate Islamic believers? A Distrust and MIS-quoting of �El Shaddai� Holy words causing a division among his believers.

Since this was a blow to Islam and NOT Judaism or Christianity it left Muslim scholars guessing whether the child of sacrifice was Isaac or Ishmael and caused much dissension between the two groups up until now. Islamispeace agrees . . . .

islamispeace wrote: if the Christian had actually done some honest research on the subject, he would have realized that many of the scholars mentioned above [also said] that Ishmael was the son of sacrifice.

SO THEY TO WERE UNDECIDED, confused. But, of course to save face and having an emotional attachment to their belief rather than the TRUTH it seems they said both! Now, that�s contradictory to say the least. But, that is the stand islamispeace has taken, it really doesn�t matter. Well, according to this scripture  it does, read Psalms 83:2, 5-6

islamispeace wrote: The Christian keeps asking this question even though we never denied that Isaac was [Abraham�s only son] through Sarah. It is obvious that he was.

Instead, of promoting TRUTH once again the fence is being straddled because of an emotional attachment to Islam. What are the sentiments of other Islamic scholars that also said it was Isaac?

According to Abu Kurayb - Ibn Yaman - Isra'il - Jabir - Ibn Sabit: He was Isaac.

According to Kurayb - Ibn Yaman - Sufyan - Abu Sinan al-Shaybani - Ibn Abi al-Hudhayl: The victim was Isaac.

According to Abu Kurayb - Sufyan b. 'Uqbah - Hmaza al-Zayyat - Abu Ishaq - Abu Maysarah: Joseph told the king to his face, "You wish to eat with me when I, by God, am Joseph son of Jacob the prophet of God, son of Isaac the victim of God, son of Abraham the friend of God."

According to Musa b. Harun - 'Amr b. Hammad - Asbat - al-Suddi - Abu Malik and Abu Salih - Ibn 'Abbas and Murrah al-Hamdani - Ibn Mas'ud and some of the companions of the Prophet: Abraham was instructed in a dream to "carry out your promise that if God granted you a son by Sarah you would sacrifice him."

According to Ya'qub - Husahym - Zakariya' and Shu'bah - Abu Ishaq - Masruq: When God said, "The We ransomed him with a tremendous victim," that was Isaac.

The great Muslim commentator al-Baidawi also believed that the child of sacrifice was Isaac. In his comments on S. 12:46, al-Baidawi states:

As He perfected it formerly on thy fathers: by appointing them as messengers. Some say (that God perfected his blessing) on Abraham by taking him as a �friend� (khalil) and by saving him from the fire (into which the unbelievers had cast him), and (he perfected it) on Isaac by delivering him from the sacrifice and by ransoming him with a great victim (for the sacrifice) ... (Helmut G�tje, The Qur'an and Its Exegesis [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 1996], p. 107; bold italic emphasis ours)

The nature of the Islamic traditions regarding the Sacrifice suggests that those locating the act in Syria and assuming Isaac to have been the intended victim WERE THE EARLIEST. The pre-Islamic association of Abraham with Mecca, however, naturally encouraged the growth of counter traditions positing the location of the Sacrifice in the sacred Islamic center. The fact that many traditions treating the first Abrahamic Pilgrimage exclude any mention of the Sacrifice lends credence to the view that the connection between the Abrahamic Sacrifice and the pre-Islamic pilgrimage sacrifice was a late (Islamic) development� (P. 149; capital and underline emphasis ours)

Further, the Bible's superiority is once again demonstrated by virtue of the fact that it even mentions the site where these events took place, Mt. Moriah, the future site of the Solomonic Temple (cf. Gen. 22:2; 2 Chron. 3:1); whereas with the Quran we are not given even the slightest hint as to where this sacrifice was to take place. This has also caused controversy and confusion amongst Muslim scholars as they desperately try to figure this problem out.

I guess common sense isn�t so common these days after all. Let me now stress what was told to Hagar regarding her son although he would become a nation of people

Genesis 16:12 He will be a wild donkey of a man. His hand will be against everyone, and everyone�s hand will be against him, and he will dwell opposite all his brothers.� (I�ll get into that later)

What was told Sarah? Genesis 17:16 I will bless her and also give you a son by her; I will bless her and she will become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.�

I stated in the outset, they need Ishmael to be the child of sacrifice instead of Isaac. Case and point . . .

islamispeace wrote: The Christian is making a leap of faith by claiming that God actually meant �take your only son through Sarah�

We ALL saw the verses in the scriptures and what we both said about �only son� but ultimately it�s what Elohim said and did in behalf of Isaac, nothing to do with faith. That in turn left Muslims still guessing and hoping that it was an error in the scriptures. This guessing has also caused them to believe that Elohim is a tribal God when in fact he�s not.  

islamispeace wrote: The reason is that we do not believe in a racial or tribal god, what the Bible refers to as the �God of Israel�. God is not just the�God of Israel� but the God of All.

It was through Abraham that Elohim said that ALL nations on the earth would be blessed through the promised seed. However, the promise was first made to Abraham, but ALL will benefit. We are ALL children of Abraham. So you�re incorrect again by saying �He�s just the God of Israel exclusively, the scriptures shows he is not.

Gen 12: 1-3 And Jehovah said to A′bram: �Go out from your land and away from your relatives and from the house of your father to the land that I will show you.  I will make you a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, and you will become a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who calls down evil on you, and all the families of the ground will certainly be blessed by means of you.

Why to Abraham? It�s what we have been discussing all along, because Abraham did not withhold his son. Gen 22:15-18

Back to the subject at hand; in an effort to impress himself he brings attention to a quote in the Akedah-the binding of Isaac. Why did he do that, it only shows beyond the shadow of doubt that Abraham�s role was a fore gleam of what would happen centuries later, who he was about to sacrifice, and what it portrayed in the Gospel, read it for yourself. Here is a taste � we understand the Akedah as a foreshadowing of the ultimate sacrifice�God�s son to make salvation to all who believe John 3:16 - �For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life. Need I say more, I believe! I BELIEVE!!!! Do you? As you can see he is unable to use the Koran to add credibility to his argument because the Koran keeps everyone guessing which is what the objective is. No wonder the Muslim community is in the dark, undecided and divided on this matter.   

http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Prayers/Daily_Prayers/Akedah/akedah.html -

islamispeace wrote: � 4Q225, was not from a non-canonical book. It was a different version of the Genesis story of Ishmael and Isaac. The last time we checked, Genesis was a canonical book!

Genesis, YES, you�re so called reliable sources like Aqedah, Jubilees and Pseudojubiless, definitely NOT! Re-check your history. These books are almost last on the food chain.

islamispeace wrote: �the Book of Jubilees is considered to be scripture by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and by Ethiopian Jews (Beta Israel)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church and by Ethiopian Jews or the Church of Rome do NOT determine what is canonical and what is not. Jubilees which is called a lesser genesis is a RE-WRITING of Genesis and Exodus, you have to do better than that to discredit the account of Abraham. You are really, really looking pretty desperate now. The Book of Jubilees along with your other reliable sources as you know FAILED the standards of the �Canon of the Scriptures� There goes your Pseudepigrapha writings up in smoke. But, it does speak negatively about your in-depth research and how thorough you are in disproving your imagined contradictions and discrepancies.

Unlike the Koran, many of the Bible writers confirm the authenticity of Genesis within its pages, even centuries later. The best example of this is that of �El Shaddai� himself and Jesus Christ.

Genesis 26: 24 That night YHWH appeared to him (Isaac) and said: �I am the God of your father Abraham. Do not be afraid, for I am with you, and I will bless you and multiply your offspring on account of Abraham my servant.�

Luke 24:44 He (Jesus) then said to them: �These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you, that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.�

Hebrews 11:17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac�the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son      

In my counterargument I am just going to use simple logic for the readers just to show you why Islam�s objection to Isaac being the �only son� of promise to Abraham does not work well within any scriptural reason or logic. First, Islam has no evidence to support it and second there are serious flows in the assumptions of the Bible�s inconsistencies.   

islamispeace wrote: We showed in our previous responses that the context of the Quranic story proves that the child of sacrifice was Ishmael (peace be upon him).

In this response, the name of Ishmael was never used in the Koran with connection to a sacrifice by Abraham. For this to be the cornerstone of Islam and Muhammad alleged connection to Ishmael this is not mentioned in Islam most sacred holy book. In this drama the hadith had to take precedence over the Koran to give the account of Ishmael more credibility. In other words, the hadith centuries later after Muhammad�s death had to fill in the blanks that was left out of the Koran in order to try and convince Muslims that Ishmael was the son that was about to be offered up by Abraham although the Scriptures specifically says Isaac, numerous of times.  

However, I noted over forty different references how Islamic scholarship strongly disagrees with islamispeace wishful thinking that it was Ishmael instead of Isaac and that MUCH confusion exists even today over the identity of the son. In the Scriptures/Bible, the son is clearly defined as Isaac being the �only child� because Ishmael was dismissed and disowned by God and Abraham. Since, the Koran explanation of the account of Abraham is grossly impaired what he uses next to defend this theory is the borderline approach to play it safe.

islamispeace wrote: � it is not a problem for Muslims whether Ishmael was the child of sacrifice or Isaac (peace be upon them).

Am I not surprised he took this route, since most Muslims have taken the same stance and since the Koran intentional left it out to build Islam up as a religion of Abraham, even having the audacity to call the God of Abraham, Allah. But for truth-seekers it is a BIG problem. It is the stark difference between the truth and a lie; the Bible and the Koran; Ishmael and Isaac. Who will be the crown King of kings, the Mahdi, the Savior for all humanity and who will not? So Muslims of course will minimize it since they have no definitive answer on which way to go and in the process undermine what the Bible say about a promised savior from the line of Isaac. One way of doing this is by attacking the Bible. 

islamispeace wrote: What he also fails to realize is that pontificating on what the Quran says does nothing to eliminate the contradictions in the Bible, which is the main issue here.

Rather than address these main issues by backing up his allegations he attacks God�s word. The Koran is for Muslims, however it has an overwhelmingly inability to clearly state what Genesis had already written thousands of years before the Koran. One such point is that Isaac was the �only child� of Abraham after Ishmael and Hagar was banned from Abraham�s household which they do not deny. But, if the Koran is going to plagiarize the account of Abraham�s life that�s in the book of Genesis at least get the facts straight with supporting evidence, which is the issue. Muslims can believe whatever their heart desire, but the contradictions in the Koran when it comes to Genesis (this case) are seriously lacking truth and direction. When I present truth from Islamic sources he doesn�t say its inaccurate instead he gloats.

islamispeace wrote: Instead, in an unprofessional and ranting fashion, he plagiarizes material from deceptive missionaries who don�t even provide all the information. .

The information these Islamic scholars provided was they felt Isaac was the child. But, it is interesting how the Koran got its stories of the prophets from the Bible but you blame me as you call it �plagiarizing� as if you don�t. But, you, even you agreed with my argument when I said Muslims scholars also agree that it was Isaac who was about to be offered up because you wrote.

islamispeace wrote: . . . 16 named Isaac.

Proof! And although the number is much higher than what you admitted you have no choice but to agree because of the FACTS! I�m just stating the facts but the blatant omitting of it from the Koran that it was Isaac is just crafty. It is the Koran that is not purposely clear on the matter, which makes it suspect. Whether or not the hadiths says it was Ishmael as you presented is immaterial, the hadiths are totally HEARSAY that came many, many, many centuries later. So, even here your statement lacks credibility and supports my objection to the Koran being seriously flawed or else it would have been written in the Koran, which must be disconcerting to Muslims. But, living in denial won�t make it go away! Then you begin to look for an alternative argument instead.

islamispeace wrote: It is obvious that we can calculate Ishmael�s age based on the Genesis story. But that�s not the problem! The problem is that while Ishmael is supposedly a teenager, the text refers to him as a child!

It was a problem because you insisted that he was an infant remember, although he was considered to be a child/teenager according to Hebrew culture, a link and scriptures was provided to show you that or did you conveniently forget? Here they are again to show you the term �child� could mean one who is a youth/teenager or young man, never infant.

Genesis 4:23 � A man I have killed for wounding me, Yes, a young man for striking me. Surly this would be no infant as you suggested.

Also, Genesis 42:22 �Did I not say to you, �Do not sin against the child,� but you would not listen? Surly this would NOT BE an INFANT as you once suggested.

What better proof but from a Hebrew dictionary of the Old Testament. ((((Explosion))))

http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3206.html -

http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/yeled.html -

http://biblehub.com/hebrew/3206.htm -   (boy (7), boys (3), child (32), child's (2), children (27), lad (2), lads (1), young (3), young men (6), youths (5).

So before you do your victory dance again, the Hebrew word ye′ledh here rendered �child� also means �young man� and is so translated at Genesis 4:23 . It was said of the youth Joseph (17 at the time) that he was sold into slavery over Reuben�s protest, �Do not sin against the child [bai�ye′ledh].� Lamech likewise spoke of �a young man [ye′ledh]�as having wounded him at Genesis 42:22

But, with all that being said . . .

islamispeace wrote: The text clearly does not portray Ishmael as a grown child (P) but most likely as an infant (E), since Hagar not only carries him (xxi 14) but also �casts� him under a bush

So, rather than admit that he was incorrect, he wants to play musical chairs. I even provided a HEBREW dictionary and Bible verses to prove that Ishmael was a child/youth/young man unlike the Koran that omits his age. Since he has nowhere else to run, he finally admits Ishmael is not an infant now.

islamispeace wrote: This would make Ishmael 13 years old at the time, since he was born when Abraham was 86 years old. #_edn1 - - [4] Up to this point, the Christian�s math is correct.

Which is it Islam, you�re vacillating? Is Ishmael an infant or a child/teenager? All along I have been supporting the scriptures by saying child/teenager/young man when you kept saying Ishmael was an infant, even showed you using a Hebrew dictionary. Now, the chicken�s coming home to roost.  At this point Islam is in the dark since the Koran is not specific and intentionally leaves out dates, ages and location of Ishmael and Isaac whereas the Bible does not and now seeks a definitive answer to his quest for knowledge.   

islamispeace wrote: The Christian claimed that the event of Hagar and Ishmael�s exile occurred five years later. We have to ask how the Christian came to this conclusion.

It really doesn�t matter since you now agree that Ishmael was a teenager and not a youth. Nonetheless, it is common knowledge that Isaac was born in 1918 BCE, consider this to be your homework and those who wish to know. YHWH had told Abraham that as alien residents his seed would be afflicted for 400 years, which affliction ended with Israel�s deliverance out of Egypt in 1513 B.C.E. Gen 15:13 Then He said to A′bram: �Know for certain that your offspring will be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people there will enslave them and afflict them for 400 years.

Four hundred years prior thereto would mark 1913 B.C.E. as the beginning of that affliction.

Acts 7:6 http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/dx/r1/lp-e/1001061148/27214 - -   Moreover, God told him that his offspring would be foreigners in a land not theirs and that the people would enslave them and afflict them for 400 years.

This means that Isaac was about five years old when weaned, having been born in 1918 B.C.E.

islamispeace wrote: It also states that when Isaac was weaned, which occurs when a child is two years old, Hagar and Ishmael were sent out.

Notice the wording �which occurs when a child is two� Yes, it could be 2, 3, 4, 5 or older from the proof I�ve provided. In Samuel�s case he was three not two, but here is another piece of reference besides using a Hebrew dictionary.

Raphael Patai says of Arab children: �Cases are known where a child was suckled until his tenth year.� The evidence indicates that Isaac was about five years old when weaned.

So, although a child can be weaned at 2 he can also be weaned at 5, in fact pass 5 as noted. Was Abraham 102 as Islam assumes? Certainly NOT!

islamispeace wrote: 102 � 86 = x, x = 16. Hence, Ishmael was at most 16 years old, not 19 years old!

Again, if the Koran was indeed trustworthy and reliable Islam would not have to be guessing like this. Nonetheless, as you can see islamispeace places Abraham at 102 instead, why? Because he Assumes Isaac was weaned at TWO instead of FIVE (Which still makes Ishmael a teenager, no less) It has been documented that a child can be weaned pass FIVE.  Since the scripture is correct in saying FIVE and the Koran cunningly omits the age that puts Ishmael at NINETEEN as was initially stated, Islam�s formula for reaching Abraham�s and Ishmael�s age is inaccurate. (((((Explosion))))) Since a teenager (19) is persecuting a child (5) we see the logic in putting Hagar and Ishmael out, disowning them from Abraham�s inheritance. And to emphasize again, it was at this time that term �only son� was used, after Ishmael was banned from his household as the �book� correctly sates.

But, even after all that, what is said about the �Christian�?

islamispeace wrote: The Christian has yet to respond to the evidence we showed from the Quran that Ishmael (peace be upon him) was indeed the child of sacrifice�.He also fails to understand that the problem is not with the Quran. The problem is with the Bible, and he has done an incredibly poor job at defending the book he calls �scripture�.

I believe he�s sincere, that�s all I can say at this point. Next, he says . . .

islamispeace wrote: The Bible contradicts itself by claiming that Ishmael was 16-years old (not 19), but then describing him as a young child. The reason for this discrepancy is due to the editing of the Genesis story, and we have provided evidence for this.

Ahmed Deedat syndrome again, but for reasons other than to disagree and to use logic, I ask you never heard a much older person calling a nineteen year old person, a child? Be truthful now. In any event the truth shell set you free.

islamispeace wrote: . . . the Christian has exhibited an abhorrent amount of ignorance� If this is the best he can offer in terms of a reasoned response, we invite some other Christian to take his place since he is doing a horrible job of defending your Bible.

Hmmmm, getting excited are we, making it personal?

islamispeace wrote: Here we see the pettiness of the Christian�s theology. Apparently, in his mind, if God made a promise about a child�s birth, this somehow made that child more superior to others.

No Islam, it�s not making the child superior but the position his offspring (Jesus) would hold would be superior. A position many false prophets wanted. Gen 17: 19-21 To this God said: �Your wife Sarah will definitely bear you a son, and you must name him Isaac. And I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant to his offspring after him. But as regards Ish′ma�el, I have heard you. Look! I will bless him and will make him fruitful and will multiply him very, very much. He will produce 12 chieftains, and I will make him become a great nation. However, I will establish my covenant with Isaac, ��

According to the �book� the God of Abraham (YHWH) had never set up a covenant with Ishmael, which is an unsupported Islamic teaching that the scriptures does not endorse. The Koran being a book for Muslims which doesn�t support Jesus as a Messiah added that statement but at the same time gives credibility to Jesus when his message doesn�t conflict with the Koran. Still, nowhere in the Bible did Ishmael have a covenant with Abraham�s God, maybe with Allah but not with (YHWH) that is not supported nowhere in the Holy Scriptures. Did God make a covenant with Isaac that is superior? Yes, it made an everlasting covenant set up by YHWH through Jesus Christ, an offspring of Isaac, Jacob and David. Our Savior!

Philippians 2:9 For this very reason, God exalted him (Jesus) to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name,

How else do we know Elohim made no covenant with Ishmael or ANY of his offspring, because they hated Abraham�s God.

1914 wrote: The animosity Ishmael had toward Isaac was handed down to his descendants; even to the extent of hating the God of Abraham in Psalms 83:2, 5-6. Muhammad claims to be a descendant of Ishmael. If I were you I would read this!�

After supporting everything on the scriptures how does Islam try to dodge the bullet? By not addressing the animosity Ishmael�s descendant had toward Isaac�s descendant but by playing games.  

islamispeace wrote: So, the Christian finally acknowledged that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was a descendant of Ishmael.

Are you serious? Did you notice the key word �CLAIM.� But, for argument sake let us say he was, why would the God of Abraham set up a covenant with Ishmael, a people who hated the Nation of Israel and the prophets? That is utter foolishness and wishful thinking to say the least. I must say though, pretty clever to use the Hebrew prophets of the Bible in your Koran and then dismiss everything they stand for in support of Muhammadanism.

Next, he tries to explain away the division and confusion of the Islamic Scholars because of their lack of scriptural knowledge of the Bible by blaming the Bible.

islamispeace wrote: The traditions about Isaac were not based on any authentic statements going back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but were rather derived from Biblical sources. It was for this reason that these traditions were later rejected�.The Christian�s blind plagiarism has betrayed him again.

Isn�t it interesting how denial works, although these highly respected Muslim scholars from long ago believed the child to be Isaac, it is my so called �plagiarism� that betrayed ME, not the Muslim scholars lack of understanding on the scriptures that betrayed them; still placing blame on the Bible. No wonder Jesus told the blind religious leaders �the only sign that would be giving them is the sign of Jonah�. Even though the evidence was right in their faces they still refuse to believe.

But, let�s look closer at this statement �The traditions about Isaac were not based on any authentic statements going back to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) but were rather derived from Biblical sources. It was for this reason that these traditions were later rejected�

Going back to the fundamentals, do Muslim�s believe in God�s word, the sixty six little books of the Bible that Muhammad and others in Arabia had access to in his day and not the convoluted one that some Churches have today? I really can�t answer; they say the Bible has been changed from its original form. But, is that because of what religion (Roman Catholic or Coptic Church) has said and done in the name of God, trying to add to his word (Apocryphal Books) Would �El Sha dai� ever let his word be changed by puny man? Does the Koran accept that idea?

The Quran claims that no one can change the Word of God. Sura 6:34; 10:34

Could it be that Muslims are losing their faith in the Creator? Do they have enough faith to believe that God�s revelations can be protected and preserve?  

Was the true revelation of God available to the people in Mohammad�s day, truthful Muslim�s would answer a resounding YES without compromising their faith! What proof is there in the Koran . . .

"�Bring here the Taurat (Torah) and recite it, if you are truthful." Sura 3:93

�So if you (O Muhammad ) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it)� Sura 10:94