Expert: Rev Philip Dacre - 8/29/2006

Question
Hello Reverand and thank you for taking my question. I have been reading up on Islam and while I do not intend to convert - they do bring up some interesting points that I cant seem to counter against when reading the bible. My main stumbling block regards Issac and Ishmael. I will quote a mulsim website that talks about this - it seems to me that they are right about the following and I was hoping you could provide some insight:

    Analysis of Differences Between the Quran and the Bible regarding Ishmael

Is reconciliation of these differences possible? Let’s focus on the last difference, namely did this incident take place before or after Isaac’s birth?

If we were to accept the Biblical version, we would encounter a number of inconsistencies and contradictions.

It is abundantly clear from the story in Gen. 21:14-19 that Ishmael was a little baby at the time. Following is the documentation of this statement:

According to Gen. 16:16 Abraham was 86 years old when Ishmael was born. And according to Gen. 21:5 Abraham was one hundred years old when Isaac was born. It follows that Ishmael was already fourteen years old when his younger brother Isaac was born.

According to Gen. 21:14-19, the incident took place after Isaac was weaned. Biblical scholars tell us that “the child was weaned about the age of three”.

It follows that when Hagar and Ishmael were taken away Ishmael was a full grown teenager seventeen years old.

The profile of Ishmael in Gen. 21:14-19, however, is that of a small baby and not of a teenager. Why?

First: According to The Interpreter’s Bible, the original Hebrew for Gen. 21:14 was “... and put the child upon her shoulder”. The same reading is rendered in the Revised Standard Edition of the Bible.

How would a mother carry a seventeen year old teenager “upon her shoulder”? Certainly he was strong enough to carry his mother! Ishmael must have been a baby!

Second: In Gen. 21:15 we are told that Hagar “cast” the child under one of the shrubs, Again, according to this Biblical text Ishmael must have been a baby and not a teenager.

Third: In Gen. 21:16 we are told that Hagar sat away so that she may not see the death of the child before her own eyes. Is that a profile of a husky seventeen year old teenager who probably was capable of being worried about his mother dying before his eyes? Or is it obviously a profile of a small helpless baby or at most a small child?

Fourth: According to Gen. 21:17, the angels told Hagar “arise, lift up the lad”. Is a seventeen year old young man a proper object to be “lifted up” by a woman? Or is that a reference to a small child or a baby?

Fifth: In Gen. 21:19, we are told that Hagar went to fill the bottle with water “and give the lad a drink”. One would expect a strong young man of seventeen to go and bring water to his mother instead.

The above analysis leads to the inevitable conclusion that while the Bible contains some truths as explained earlier, there is also evidence of human additions, deletions, and interpolations which only a subsequent authentic revelation (The Qur’an) could clear. The Islamic version of the story is fully consistent and coherent from A to Z; Ishmael was a baby and Isaac was not born yet when this incident took place. This coherence and consistency are confirmed by centuries-old traditions and even actual locations in Makkah (Mecca) where Hagar and Ishmael settled. This clearly implies that the real reason behind their settlement in Arabia (Paran) was not the dictation, jealousy, ego or sense of racial superiority on the part of Sarah. It was rather God’s plan; pure and simple.

It may be relevant to indicate that this issue is not the only instance of inconsistency in respect to Ishmael’s story. The Interpreter’s Bible compares the story of Hagar and Ishmael in Gen. 21:14-19 with that in an earlier chapter (Gen. 16:1-16) and concludes “the inclusion in Genesis of both stories so nearly alike and yet sufficiently different to be inconsistent, is one of many instances of the reluctance of the compilers to sacrifice any of the traditions which has become established in Israel”.


So Reverand you can see how I would be confused. I want my Christian faith to remain intact - but cant ignore the obvious inconsistancy of the biblical story that the muslims have pointed out - any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated. thankyou


Answer
Dear Pete,


Yes I have a comment. I have not yet studied the details of the story you have mentioned but I do want to caution your faith. That it should not be put in the bibles inerrancy.

Factually, historically, even geographically and politically. The bible does have inaccuracies. But spiritually it has none. This scripture kind of sums it up.

2 Corinthians 3:6
who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life


The spiritual content is what counts. I have heard it mentioned that there are 100 factual inaccuracies in the New Testament alone. I have seen many of these. Written by amateurs and translated by amateurs. Over 2000 years.

The bible was not written to prove God or His New Covenant but to describe the nature of God so that we, when accepting His Holy Spirit didn’t make the mistake of receiving the wrong spirit.

Christian ideology and philosophy are not the same as following the Living Christ which is the whole point of the whole bible.

We serve someone who is alive and talks and acts today. The bible was written to describe the heart of Him. It does this well. Even a person of low IQ can understand what Jesus (the Living Word) was like and how he would have acted in a given situation today.

This example is all we need to test the spirits. Old Testament is there merely to show the different dispensations and different attributes of the one we serve under differing conditions and environments.


Not to be used as a source of proving God against another religious viewpoint. The Old lead to the New Testament, where He write His laws on our hearts and in our minds. Where no one has to teach us but the anointing teaches us. Where no one will say "know the Lord" but everyone form the greatest to the least will know Him.

Very different to arguing philosophical viewpoints of different secular religions. But Christianity is all to do with direct contact with a Living God. Not to argue about viewpoints.

NOW the differing facts found, even in the new testament, are definite. 100 at least wrong facts. But the living Christ is not contactable because or despite these. He exists in His reality.

The bible just a guide to how to contact Him. The bible is not our God. Our God exists in person and does and responds the way the bible portrays it.

So, if you wish me to look into this supposed inerrancy I will study it more for you Pete but I warn you there are more of these. The Qram has spiritual inaccuracies and this is where we never have these in our holy scriptures which Jesus said "can never be broken"

God bless