My discussion with Faiz on bloggingtheology.net, the “author” = Faiz

  1. The author defends the destruction of Noah’s tribe on the grounds of their stubborn refusal to worship Allah. This is never a reason for judgement in the bible.

    Moses encountered a number of pagan nations on his way to the promised land but he did not command them to convert under threat of being attacked.

    There must be some moral lapse for judgement to occur.

    The author argues for a local flood. Maybe many Muslims don’t like the idea of a worldwide flood because it would inevitably involve the death of many “innocents”, the space on the ark being limited by design. Though women worship the same gods as their male relatives.

    The idea that Ishmael was a small infant because the word hey-ye-led, as opposed to ye-led, can only mean infant is not supported by the translators, for example in Ecclesiastes 4 v 13 and 15. Verse 13 is the word ye-led and verse 15 is the word hey-ye-led.

    Most of the translations translate both words as youth, the KJV both words as child. Douey Rheims translates verse 15 as young man and verse 13 as child, whereas God’s Word translation translates both v 13 and v 15 as young man. NAS translates both verses as “lad”.

    Like

  2. “The author defends the destruction of Noah’s tribe on the grounds of their stubborn refusal to worship Allah. This is never a reason for judgement in the bible.

    Moses encountered a number of pagan nations on his way to the promised land but he did not command them to convert under threat of being attacked.

    There must be some moral lapse for judgement to occur.”

    Not quite. In the Bible, the Jews are routinely punished for their worship of other gods besides the God of Israel. For example, see Numbers 25:3:

    “So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.”

    Also, see Judges 2:10ff.

    “The author argues for a local flood. Maybe many Muslims don’t like the idea of a worldwide flood because it would inevitably involve the death of many “innocents”, the space on the ark being limited by design. Though women worship the same gods as their male relatives.”

    I argue for a local flood because that it what the evidence from the Quran shows. A global flood makes no sense if the people were not warned beforehand. Allah says in the Quran:

    “…thy Lord would not destroy for their wrong-doing men’s habitations whilst their occupants were unwarned” (Surah al-Anaam, 6:131)

    But yes, it would be unjust to destroy many innocent people that were not guilty of the sins of Noah’s people, especially if those people were not warned ahead of time to prepare for the coming catastrophe. That is one reason why the Biblical account makes no sense.

    “The idea that Ishmael was a small infant because the word hey-ye-led, as opposed to ye-led, can only mean infant is not supported by the translators, for example in Ecclesiastes 4 v 13 and 15. Verse 13 is the word ye-led and verse 15 is the word hey-ye-led.

    Most of the translations translate both words as youth, the KJV both words as child. Douey Rheims translates verse 15 as young man and verse 13 as child, whereas God’s Word translation translates both v 13 and v 15 as young man. NAS translates both verses as “lad”.”

    That’s exactly the point! The translators choose to be inconsistent in how they translate these words, even though they are different.

    Also, as I explained in a follow-up article, there is evidence that ancient Jews recognized the contradiction regarding ishmael’s age and thus tried to remove the contradiction. In a 2006 article in the journal “Dead Sea Discoveries”, Betsy Halpern-Amaru made the following interesting observation about a variant of the story in question in the fragment of the Dead Scrolls known as 4Q225:

    “…the author of 4Q225 develops a structure that creates a new backdrop for the narrative of the Aqedah. Prefacing the account of the Aqedah is a summary presentation of the promises of a son and multiple progeny in Gen 15:2–6 (2 i 3–7). Isaac’s birth is announced immediately thereafter (2 1 8–9a) and thereby is explicitly portrayed as the fulfillment of the preceding divine promise of a son. The Ishmael narratives that intervene between the promises of the covenant making in Genesis 15 and the birth of Isaac are omitted. Indeed, in 4Q225 Ishmael is never born. Consequently, when God commands Abraham to sacrifice his only son (2 i 11), Isaac is quite literally…the only son the patriarch has.”

    Also, in a 2001 article in the journal “Vetus Testamentum”, S. Nikaido of Berkeley University made a very interesting observation about the depiction of Ishmael in Genesis 21, which supports our contention that the story has been altered by Jewish scribes. Nikaido states:

    “According to Gen. xvii 25 (P), Ishmael was at least thirteen. Therefore, Gen. Rabbah 53.13 (also Rashi) suggests that he was carried because of illness; Abravanel interprets we”et-hayyeled as meaning Ishmael helped carry the provisions. Modern commentators, however, fault the discrepancy on P’s superimposed chronology (Gen. xvi 16 and xxi 5; xvii 25), a phenomenon occurring elsewhere (e.g., Gen. xii 11 compared with xvii 17 and xii 4). 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 (v. 15; cf. Exod i 22) and “lifts him up” (v. 18). Other clues include: God hears the child’s voice (v. 17), presumably crying, rather than his mother’s (E. Fripp, “Note on Gen. xxi 6. 8-12”, ZAW 12 [1892], pp. 164-65), the reference to his “growing” (v. 20), and the fact that Hagar is not portrayed as being in any mortal danger but only the child.”

    So, as you can see, scholars recognize the contradiction. The only ones who don’t are fundamentalist Jews and Christians.

    For more, see the following: http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/response-to-christian-about-biblical_17.html

    Like

  3. @ Faiz

    I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.

    Genesis 21 v 11 “And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight because of his son. 12 And God said unto Abraham, Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah hath said unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall thy seed be called. 13 And also of the son of the bondwoman will I make a nation, because he is thy seed. 14 And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.

    15 And the water was spent in the bottle, and she cast the child under one of the shrubs. 16 And she went, and sat her down over against him a good way off, as it were a bowshot: for she said, Let me not see the death of the child. And she sat over against him, and lift up her voice, and wept. 17 And God heard the voice of the lad; and the angel of God called to Hagar out of heaven, and said unto her, What aileth thee, Hagar? fear not; for God hath heard the voice of the lad where he is. 18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation. 19 And God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water; and she went, and filled the bottle with water, and gave the lad drink.

    20 And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer. 21 And he dwelt in the wilderness of Paran: and his mother took him a wife out of the land of Egypt.”

    The fact that Ishmael is sometimes referred to as lad and sometimes as child is not a contradiction in my view. From the point of view of relation the child is always the child of it’s parents. It never ceases to be so. In point of view of it’s own development the child ceases to be a child. The word “lad” signifies this.

    In my view the text does not imply that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder.

    Perhaps the fact that Hagar is said to have cast Ishmael under one of the shrubs and that God commanded her to lift him up is not so easy to explain if he is sixteen years old.

    I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.

    “Sarah Turns against Hagar

    Genesis 21 v 9 And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, which she had born unto Abraham, mocking. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham, Cast out this bondwoman and her son: for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac. ”

    It is obvious here that “cast out” does not mean literally throw out but to remove or place beyond or outside of something, in this case the household of Abraham.

    //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    “Not quite. In the Bible, the Jews are routinely punished for their worship of other gods besides the God of Israel. For example, see Numbers 25:3:

    “So Israel yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor. And the Lord’s anger burned against them.”

    Also, see Judges 2:10ff.”

    That’s true but the generation of Noah is not in a special convenant relationship to Jehovah so they cannot be held responsible and judged to be worthy of punishment on these grounds as the Israelites were. They had no written laws given to them by God through a mediator, as Moses was, which told them how they must worship God or conduct themselves so to as to avoid his wrath. The Jews were judged and punished on the grounds of the laws which they had broken but Noah’s generation did not have these laws.

    “But yes, it would be unjust to destroy many innocent people that were not guilty of the sins of Noah’s people, especially if those people were not warned ahead of time to prepare for the coming catastrophe. That is one reason why the Biblical account makes no sense. ”

    Noah was a one-time universal flood which will never be repeated according to bible. In the Quran it is the paradigm for the religious duty of continuously confronting the infidel civilizations before declaring war upon them. Mohammed interpreted the flood in this way did he not?

    Is it more just to keep repeating this scenario of confronting a people with the demand to repent and submit to the warner and then attacking those who refuse to submit? I don’t believe this is how God works in the bible. I see no evidence in the bible that this is God’s will. It is just a continual declaration of war upon the infidel rulers which will only end when there are no more infidel governments. Does God really want this kind of world?

    One specific reason that God gave for destroying the world was because it was filled with violence:

    “Gen 6 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.”

    Like

  4. Like

  5. Like

  6. Faiz you passed the test

    Like

  7. Madmaana,

    Sorry for the lateness of my response. For some reason, my comments weren’t posting yesterday.

    “I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.”

    And what do you base this on? What proof do you have that the KJV “was preserved by divine providence”? I hope you understand that an a priori assumption does not serve as a convincing argument. You are essentially making a circular argument.

    But let’s use the KJV, since you prefer to use it.

    In my original article, I pointed to Exodus 2:3 to show that the Hebrew word hay-ye-led was used to describe the baby Moses (peace be upon him). Later in Exodus 2, Moses “grows” and becomes a man:

    “And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water. And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.” (Exodus 2:10-11).

    This verse is very similar to the verse about Ishmael “growing” after his exile:

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    Why would we assume that Moses was an infant, but Ishmael was a teenager, before they both “grew”? You have to be honest. There is something fishy going on.

    “The fact that Ishmael is sometimes referred to as lad and sometimes as child is not a contradiction in my view. From the point of view of relation the child is always the child of it’s parents. It never ceases to be so. In point of view of it’s own development the child ceases to be a child. The word “lad” signifies this.”

    Not true. In Genesis, Isaac is repeatedly referred to as Abraham’s “son”, rather than his “child”, even before he grew up (Genesis 21:3). He is referred to as “child” only once (Genesis 21:8). From that point on, he is referred to as “son”. Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?

    “In my view the text does not imply that Abraham put Ishmael on Hagar’s shoulder.”

    Jewish scholars, like Rashi, would disagree with you. The fact is that the text clearly shows that Hagar was carrying Ishmael. The early rabbis found this difficult to explain if he was 16 years old, so they literally invented a story to explain it, as Rashi noted:

    “He also placed the child on her shoulder, because Sarah had cast an evil eye upon him, and he was seized by a fever so that he could not walk on his feet.”

    “Perhaps the fact that Hagar is said to have cast Ishmael under one of the shrubs and that God commanded her to lift him up is not so easy to explain if he is sixteen years old.

    I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.”

    Again, what are you basing this on? What proof do you have?

    I never said that “cast” means to “throw”. What I did say is that if Ishmael was 16 years old, Hagar didn’t need to “cast” him under a bush and “lift” him up. He could have done that himself.

    “That’s true but the generation of Noah is not in a special convenant relationship to Jehovah so they cannot be held responsible and judged to be worthy of punishment on these grounds as the Israelites were. They had no written laws given to them by God through a mediator, as Moses was, which told them how they must worship God or conduct themselves so to as to avoid his wrath. The Jews were judged and punished on the grounds of the laws which they had broken but Noah’s generation did not have these laws.”

    If that was the case, then why were they still destroyed by the flood for other sins? How could they have been judged if “they had no written laws”? How would they have known better? Surely, you can see the contradiction in your reasoning?

    “Noah was a one-time universal flood which will never be repeated according to bible. In the Quran it is the paradigm for the religious duty of continuously confronting the infidel civilizations before declaring war upon them. Mohammed interpreted the flood in this way did he not?”

    No. The flood was a legitimate punishment which the people of Noah brought themselves for rejecting God’s warnings to them to give up their idolatry. They were warned ahead of time, but they remained stubborn. Therefore, they brought upon themselves God’s judgment.

    In contrast, you want us to believe that God wiped out the entire world for its sins, without any warning whatsoever. Even if it was “a one-time universal flood”, it was extremely unfair to destroy the world for not knowing any better since, as you stated, the people did not have “written laws”.

    “Is it more just to keep repeating this scenario of confronting a people with the demand to repent and submit to the warner and then attacking those who refuse to submit? I don’t believe this is how God works in the bible. I see no evidence in the bible that this is God’s will. It is just a continual declaration of war upon the infidel rulers which will only end when there are no more infidel governments. Does God really want this kind of world?”

    You are conflating two different scenarios. Before the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), people were called on to accept the teachings of their prophets. If they rejected their prophets, they were punished. That is why the people of Noah, Salih, and Hud were destroyed. After the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is only one universal message since he was sent to the entire world, not just to his own people. Even then, the only time it is allowed to wage war is against those who wage war against Muslims. Once that happens, then and only then are they given 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax (jizya) or face war. Muslims are not allowed to fight against unbelievers with whom they have a treaty with.

    In addition, you claim that there is “no evidence in the Bible that this is God’s will”. You are wrong. What about the people of Nineveh and Jonah?

    “And the word of the Lord came unto Jonah the second time, saying,

    2 Arise, go unto Nineveh, that great city, and preach unto it the preaching that I bid thee.

    3 So Jonah arose, and went unto Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city of three days’ journey.

    4 And Jonah began to enter into the city a day’s journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown.

    5 So the people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them” (Jonah, 3:1-5).

    Clearly, the people of Nineveh were warned to give up their wicked ways and to believe in God and worship Him. And they did:

    “And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not” (Jonah 3:10).

    And by the way, according to the Bible, when Jesus returns, he will wage war against all “infidels” and kill those who refuse to accept him:

    “But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me” (Luke 19:27).

    Even though this was a parable, it was made clear that Jesus was referring to himself. So as you can see, this was essentially “a continual declaration of war upon the infidels”. The only difference is that it is supposed to happen during Jesus’ second coming.

    <b?”One specific reason that God gave for destroying the world was because it was filled with violence:

    “Gen 6 11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.””

    But where was it written that people should do no violence? As you stated, they had no “written laws”! So, how would they have known better? And why didn’t God at least warn them first to repent of their evil ways?

    Also, it was not just “violence” but every manner of sin that people were committing:

    “And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5).

    Like

  8. Thanks Paul. I don’t why but my comments were not posting previously, but now they are are.

    Like

  9. Another point to add:

    In the Hebrew text for Exodus 2:11 and Genesis 21:20, the word used for “grew” is exactly the same:

    “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown (way-yiḡ-dal) that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren” (Exodus 2:10)

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew (way-yiḡ-dāl), and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/2-10.htm
    http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/21-20.htm

    So, this is further linguistic proof that Ishmael (peace be upon him) could not have been a teenager.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Hello Faiz, thanks for the interesting discussion,

    ” “I believe that the original text that the kjv text is based upon was preserved by divine providence and that the KJV translators translated it correctly also by God’s providence. So the ony thing I can do in response is to look at the text as given by the KJV.”

    And what do you base this on? What proof do you have that the KJV “was preserved by divine providence”? I hope you understand that an a priori assumption does not serve as a convincing argument. You are essentially making a circular argument. ”

    ******I am not arguing for this. I take it as a given from the nature of revelation that it is true and God preserves it or else what would be the point? I also don’t believe that the so-called chains of narration prove in a scientific sense that the Quran is what it claims to be.

    “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren.”

    “This verse is very similar to the verse about Ishmael “growing” after his exile:

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    Why would we assume that Moses was an infant, but Ishmael was a teenager, before they both “grew”? You have to be honest. There is something fishy going on.”

    ******I don’t see your point to be honest. The growth process starts at birth and finishes sometime after the teenage years, i.e. when Ishmael was a lad he was still growing. It doesn’t finish because there is a bar mitvah either. There are different words which indicate at which stage the subject of the narrative has reached in his growth process. It is altogether natural to use these words to differentiate between the various points in the stage of the growth process. The bible does this. What is fishy about this?

    “Not true. In Genesis, Isaac is repeatedly referred to as Abraham’s “son”, rather than his “child”, even before he grew up (Genesis 21:3). He is referred to as “child” only once (Genesis 21:8). From that point on, he is referred to as “son”. Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?”

    “Why wouldn’t the same be true for Ishmael? Why call him “child” in one place and “lad” in another place?””

    ******Why not? Why should the same be true for Ishmael?

    ******If God is controlling the narrative it’s up to him what he wants to say. If you want to see a jewish conspiracy fair enough. There are other possible reasons. I don’t have to conclude that there was a conspiracy. Unless you have compelling evidence which I do not see and which I believe derives rather from your prejudice.

    “I would say that “cast” does not mean throw but rather to place him there. No mother would throw her child around if he was sick. That is nonsense.

    The command to lift him up does not mean to lift him up completely off the ground but to lift up his upper body so that he could drink. I don’t think this would be beyond the strength of Hagar to achieve.”

    Again, what are you basing this on? What proof do you have?

    I never said that “cast” means to “throw”. What I did say is that if Ishmael was 16 years old, Hagar didn’t need to “cast” him under a bush and “lift” him up. He could have done that himself. ”

    ***** I think it is quite logical to deduce from the narrative that Hagar has placed Ishmael under a bush because he was sick and close to death and she left him for dead. The idea that they have no water and this has no consequences is irrational but it seems to be your belief.

    “If that was the case, then why were they still destroyed by the flood for other sins? How could they have been judged if “they had no written laws”? How would they have known better? Surely, you can see the contradiction in your reasoning?

    No. The flood was a legitimate punishment which the people of Noah brought themselves for rejecting God’s warnings to them to give up their idolatry. They were warned ahead of time, but they remained stubborn. Therefore, they brought upon themselves God’s judgment.

    In contrast, you want us to believe that God wiped out the entire world for its sins, without any warning whatsoever. Even if it was “a one-time universal flood”, it was extremely unfair to destroy the world for not knowing any better since, as you stated, the people did not have “written laws”.”

    ******Yes, but God revealed his moral will verbally from the beginning and through the conscience. They did not die because they were idolaters. They died because their thoughts, and as a result their actions, were only evil continually. So if someone dies who has not been warned is that an unjust action on the part of Allah? It would seem so according to your logic.

    “After the coming of Muhammad (peace be upon him), there is only one universal message since he was sent to the entire world, not just to his own people. Even then, the only time it is allowed to wage war is against those who wage war against Muslims. Once that happens, then and only then are they given 3 choices: convert to Islam, pay a tax (jizya) or face war. Muslims are not allowed to fight against unbelievers with whom they have a treaty with.”

    ******Why should the message change because there is only prophet instead of many? Why should rejection have a different consequence after Mohammed? If idolatry was punished by death before Mohammed why not the same punishment after Mohammed? So if the idolaters do not wage war against Muslims they can continue their idolatrous way of life? Is that what you are saying? If nobody wages war against the idolaters they will just continue with their idolatry won’t they? This does not jive with the Quran in my view.

    “Another point to add:

    In the Hebrew text for Exodus 2:11 and Genesis 21:20, the word used for “grew” is exactly the same:

    “And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown (way-yiḡ-dal) that he went out unto his brethren, and looked on their burdens: and he spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew, one of his brethren” (Exodus 2:10)

    “And God was with the lad; and he grew (way-yiḡ-dāl), and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer” (Genesis 21:20).

    http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/2-10.htm
    http://biblehub.com/text/genesis/21-20.htm

    So, this is further linguistic proof that Ishmael (peace be upon him) could not have been a teenager.”

    *******I don’t agree with your claim that this is linguistic proof of anything. The text just states that in the case of Moses the growth process was finished and he was a fully grown man. In the case of Ishmael that he was still growing because he was called a lad.

    I look forward to your response whenever.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s