Talking Point #15 – the blessing of Ishmael as proof of his inclusion in the inheritance (not!)

The Chrislam proponents are so willing to point out the “almost the same” character in the Quran named jesus that they will even stretch Scripture to prove their point.  Let me show you what I mean.

Have you attended the “jesus in the Quran” seminar heresy?  If you have one their books you should check on this yourself.  In discussing the blessing that God (of the Bible) must have given to Abraham’s son Ishmael (recall that the Muslims believe that Abraham offered Ishmael and not Isaac as Scripture plainly says), they point to the passage found in Genesis in which Abraham asks God to bless Ishmael.

“And Abraham said to God, ‘If only Ishmael might live under your blessing!’  Then God said, ‘Yes, but your wife Sarah will bear you a son, and you will call him Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.  And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: Behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.’”
Genesis 17:18-20

“Wait”, you say, “it *does* say that God will bless Ishmael in the last verse.”  But the verse is being used by the jiQ folks to prove equality of the Muslim with the Christian.  There are two immediate problems with their use of this verse to prove a covenant relationship for Ishmael.  First, God didn’t say “Yes”, and second, Paul makes this ever clearer in Galatians.  Let’s take the issues one at a time.

Notice I didn’t tell you what English translation of the Bible the jiQ folks used to make their teaching point.  It was the New International Version (NIV), and it has a major problem.  Here is verse 19 again as it appears in several other translations of the Bible.

And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.”
Genesis 17:19 KJV

But God said, “No, but Sarah your wife will bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.”
Genesis 17:19 NASB

Then God said: No, Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac; I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his descendants after him.”
Genesis 17:19 NKJV

But God replied, “No—Sarah, your wife, will give birth to a son for you. You will name him Isaac, and I will confirm My covenant with him and his descendants as an everlasting covenant.”
Genesis 17:19 NLT

Are you beginning to see the point?  ALL other translations of the Bible have either a definite “No” or they portray God as simply ignoring the request.  I urge you to do this exercise for yourself:  go home and grab all of your different translations and read them all, compare them, and find another version of Scripture that agrees with the NIV and the jiQ folks.  The NIV stands out like a sore thumb amongst other translations at being wrong!  Of course that was explained in the course as well.  According to the teacher, the modern translations of the Bible say “No” at this point, but ancient translations (their words) say “Yes” (and so they use the only modern version that matches the ancient version).  It works for them – they exist to deceive and have found an errant version of Scripture that they can use to support their deception.

So let’s go find something a bit more reliable than an English translation to begin with.  Let’s go to the original “ancient” version that they say has a “Yes” in it.  You can’t get more ancient than Hebrew when concerning the Bible, so let’s go directly there.  The following was copied from Blue Letter Bible.

Hebrew Genesis 17:19

Hebrew Genesis 17:19

So there’s the “ancient” translation that the jiQ folks want you to believe fits their story, but it doesn’t.  The Hebrew translation doesn’t change with time like the many English translations.  Please continue checking this for yourself.  You have the original, the Strong’s numbers, etc.  Have fun.

But there is still one more proof.  Paul, in Galatians 4, takes the question of Ishmael vs. Isaac to a whole new level.  Let’s read:

“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.  But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.  Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.  For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.  But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.  For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.  Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.  But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.  Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.  So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.”
Galatians 4:22-31

Notice the parts in bold print.  Even if God had said yes to Abraham’s request, that would no more make him a part of the inheritance of God than Satan is right now.  Blessings are one thing, but being heir to a covenant and life eternal is another thing altogether.  Paul specifically says that Ishmael persecuted Isaac and it is that way even today, and he further instructs us to cast out Ishmael as he will “not be heir with the son of the freewoman”.  Does this mean we are not to witness to the Muslim (son of the bondwoman)?  No.  We don’t serve that kind of a God – He is not willing that any should perish and we must witness to all.  But it does mean that the bloodline for the covenant, God’s chosen people, is through Isaac and there is nothing that Ishmael has that is in relation to the inheritance that is yours, Christian.  Because he has no inheritance from the Father, he cannot be part of the family unless he decides to deny the god of Islam and convert to Christianity and love.

Be careful when people talk to you about Islam and its comparison to Christianity.  There is no comparison, the god of Islam is not the God of the Bible, and…

Jesus is NOT in the Quran!

About LTSMinistries

Bible Teacher and Founder of Learning to Serve Ministries
Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Talking Point #15 – the blessing of Ishmael as proof of his inclusion in the inheritance (not!)

  1. submitter says:

    Prophecy Servant of God
    ` ` ` ` ` ` ` `
    word Atmak not necessarily means ‘whom I uphold’ but is infact a name

    the writing of Atmak is אתמך
    the writing of Ahmad is אחמד

    Isaiah 42:1
    God says
    “Behold, ‘My Servant’ (pronounced as Abd-ee), ‘whom I uphold’ (pronounced as Atmak);

    God mentioning about the coming of His servant
    Behold My Servant Ahmad (Isaiah 42:1) – so who is this Ahmad as in God’servant?

    He is none other than
    Abd-Allah Ahmad (Servant of God, Ahmad) – Prophet Muhammad s.a.w

    • Here we see deception as no one but the god of Islam could instill into his servants. This commenter says that Isaiah 42:1 uses the word “atmak”, or, as he/she puts it as a name, “Atmak”. In fact, a quick review of the verse at shows that the word used for “whom I uphold” is “tamak”, written in Hebrew as תמך (compare this to the commenter’s Hebrew characters above to see the difference). It is not a proper name and is not even pronounced the way the commenter has presented it. He/she is hoping you will simply receive the lesson without checking it for yourself. Never do that…not even with anything we post here. Always double check what you receive and prove that which you hear from the Bible. In this case, the Hebrew word in question is Strong’s Concordance number H8551 (the H stands for Hebrew as opposed to other words preceded with a G for Greek), and is defined in the concordance as follows:

      to grasp, hold, support, attain, lay hold of, hold fast
      a) (Qal)
      1) to grasp, lay hold of, attain
      2) to hold up, support
      3) to hold, keep
      4) to take hold of each other
      b) (Niphal) to be seized, be held

      The commenter also uses the word “Abd-ee” for the word servant. This is where the commenter made perhaps the biggest mistake. He/she is using the Latin variation of the word, but the word used here is “ebed” and it just happens to be one of my personal favorite words in the Bible. It does indeed mean “servant” (as you can verify in Blue Letter Bible in the same verse), but is a Hebrew word that means a servant who WANTS to serve. It is one who says “I love my Master” as in Exodus 21:5 and he is considered a “bondservant” (not a slave as in the Muslim’s claim to be a slave to allah). My favorite character in the Bible is named Ebed-Melech, “bondservant to the king”, and he can be found in Jeremiah, specifically chapter 38 and verse 7-13. I consider myself a “bondservant to the King”. Don’t you, Christian?

      So, what was the commenter trying to say again? Where did he/she get the word atmak? And how did we get from Atmak to Ahmad? The best that I could find was a Turkish word, not a Hebrew one. So is there anything in the Bible that points to the pedophile Muhammad (death be upon him – see Talking Point #44) as a prophet of or anyone who would lead anyone else to the One True Real God of the Universe, the One Who gave us the Bible? Nope.

      And by the way, notice how the commenter built his/her argument having nothing to do with “allah” and then slipped it in at the very end of his/her comment. The deception truly flows from Muslims who know what their false god has ordained for them. So, Christian, be prepared. Know your Bible as well as their Quran and be ready to defend that for which you stand.

      Commenter, we truly do want to witness to you, but will make every effort to protect our body of Christian believers from deception such as this at any given time. We wish you blessings and salvation through the Holy Spirit and welcome dialog with you about your coming to know Jesus Christ as your personal Savior at any time.

      • submit says:

        To the readers, please be reminded that the word ‘my servant’ is ebedi or avdi or Abdee. Still it means ‘My servant’ despite variants in spelling. And when God proclaim ‘My Servant’ , indeed He was foretell the coming of His servant; thus called Servant of God.

        We shall moved onto the next word Atmak. This word can only be found once in the entire bible. It is claimed to be derived from the root word ‘Tamak’. But, if we study the writing style of Atmak which happen to appear only once throughout Bible, the style of writing is extremely close to that of Ahmad.

        And by typing both words in modern hebrew translators, you will notice that those translators would not be able to define the word Atmak / ‘whom i uphold’ . As such it translate the word letter by letter. Indeed this give us an insight that it was not a verb coming from the root ‘Tamak’
        אחמד (Ahmad)
        אתמך (Atmc)

        He was non other than Ahmad (EbedAllah / AvdAllah / AbdAllah) doesnt matter which spelling as it means Servant of God. – Prophet Muhammad s.a.w

        • First, I want everyone to know that I have full control over the visibility of the comments on this site. When a visitor leaves a comment, I get a message about it and the chance to review it and then either approve it for you to see or to trash it. I have hardly ever trash a comment unless it was left by a spam bot (you wouldn’t believe how many advertisements get left here by spam bots) or if it is a language that I cannot read and cannot get interpreted. I assume those too are spam.

          Comments like this one need to be seen by everyone. When the deception happens, you need to see it and recognize it. Read on.

          The Bible was given to us by God (of the Bible, needless to say, not the false god of Islam). It was given by Him in the Hebrew language. When you read the Bible today in English, you have two immediate problems: 1) you are getting the translator’s opinion of the true meaning of the script, and 2) you have to get past your own opinions (in other words, you have to not read the words in context of how you view the world today but you have to understand them in the way they were intended when given). When God gave the Scriptures, He gave them in Hebrew and we do not have those problems. If you read the Scriptures in Hebrew you are reading them in Hebrew and need no worries about whether the word is the original. It is. You still have the culture issue to deal with – you have to understand and think like a Hebrew rather than a Western, Greek/Gentile, but the words are the words. This word to which the commenter is referring is “ebed”, bondservant (see my first reply above). He/she can bring in any other variations from other languages all he wants, but the original is all that matters, and the word is ebed.

          The commenter chooses “servant” to my “bondservant”. The reason he uses servant is because he is Muslim and knows the very word “Islam” means “submission”. It is a forced submission, such as slavery, not a submission by choice (in fact, in Islam, to be born to Islamic parents automatically makes the child a Muslim). This doesn’t sound anything like the God of the Bible. In Christianity, each one must make the choice to become a servant and, therefore, fits the role of the “bondservant” – one who chooses to stay and serve the Master because, like I said in my earlier reply above, they “love their master.” It is servitude out of love, not out of a forced service.

          Lastly, the commenter keeps interjecting Muhammad at the end of the comments as this “servant” to which the verse refers. Nothing could be more false – Muhammad was a murdering, lying, pedophile thief – going against all the laws of God. Christian, ask yourself, how can a man do all these things and have the approval of the loving God of the Bible? Read through this site with all the proofs of difference between the God of the Bible and the god of Islam and ask yourself how one serving the false god could possibly be doing so under direct orders or supervision from the One True God.

          The commenter also, falling in line with Islamist standards, continues to include “s.a.w.” after the name Muhammad. This is the Arabic form of “PBUH” (peace be upon him). See Talking Point #27 to learn that there is no peace upon Muhammad. He died without having accepted Jesus Christ (of the Bible), or, for that matter, even the guy named jesus in the Quran, as his Savior. He is with all the others throughout history who have rejected our Lord and, I can assure you, there is no peace upon him.

          Trust in this, Christian – The God of the Bible never gave a single verse telling you to behold a pedophile in another religion. This verse, Isaiah 42:1 says “Behold My servant…”, meaning a servant of YHWH, thereby ruling out Muhammad all together. Regardless of about whom it speaks, you can easily determine about whom it does not speak.

  2. Pingback: comments I want you all to see… - Jesus is NOT in the Quran!

  3. submit says:

    Please do continue to read on the prophesied servant of God. Thank you.

    If if we look at the passages in Isaiah. God addressed His chosen servants with their names, and in that particular verse we see God prophesied clearly the servant’s name. Some examples of God mentioning His servant by name.

    (My Servant Isaiah, My Servant Eliakim, David My Servant, Jacob My Servant, My Servant Israel, and so in Isaiah 42:1 , God specifically mention My Servant Ahmad)

    It is deemed not a coincidence upon seeing the writing of both אתמך (Atmc) אחמד (Ahmd). And the word before אתמך (Atmc), is עבדי (Abedi~My Servant). For indeed, it is indicating Ahmad; Abedallah (Ahmad; Servant of God).

    Not to mention אתמך (Atmc) happen to be a special term foretelling the coming of a righteous man and is used only ONCE throughout the entire Book. [could this be a copying error or an intended error?]

    The prophecy tells about Ahmad; ‘Servant of God’ whom will war to correct the wrongs and bringing judgement based on the law of God. He will liberate act of worshiping molten images and thus Arabia (wilderness desert, villages and cities) will glorify God since then. As can be seen today, inhabitants of Arabia are worshiping,praising God and singing words of God daily.

    And we continue reading Isaiah 42:18 – 25; God remind the ‘blind and deaf’ about the wrath of God towards Children of Israel, who neglect the message brought by past Servant of God.

    And not to repeat; the same mistake upon the coming of the new Servant of God

    • We’ve been over this twice before and I’ve both allowed your comments to stand and replied to your comments with scholarly reference. For reference of those reading this, you refer to one of Isaiah’s “Servant Songs” (of which there are four: 42:1-9, 49:1-13, 50:4-11, and 52:13 – 53:12). One should be familiar with all four of them, in their proper context, in order to understand what God sent us through the prophet Isaiah.

      The word to which you refer does not mean a named individual as you allude, but is a pointer to Jesus Christ (of the Bible). You are correct to capitalize it as “Servant of God”, but you have the wrong servant and the wrong god in mind when you do so.

      I will gladly continue this debate with you, public as it has been or in private, but if/when you write again, please bring references.

      Have a good day.

  4. The Bible tells what God said about the blessing of Ishmael’s descendents:

    Gen 17:20 And as for Ishmael, I have heard thee: behold, I have blessed him, and will make him fruitful, and will multiply him exceedingly; twelve princes shall he beget, and I will make him a great nation.

    Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.

    Gen 21:13 And also of the son of the handmaid will I make a nation, because he is thy seed.

    Gen 21:17 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. Gen 21:18 Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thy hand. For I will make him a great nation.

    As we see here, God in the Bible is talking about Ishamael as being blessed, and that he will have a great nation, blessing according to the Bible is prophecy in his descendents, for example if we looked at Genesis 27 at the story when Jacob took the blessing from Esau.

    Someone might say that this prophecy was fulfilled in that script:

    Gen 25:13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebaioth, and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam, Gen 25:14 and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa, Gen 25:15 Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedemah. Gen 25:16 These are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments. Twelve princes according to their nations.

    Well, look at what is said in Genesis 17:

    Gen 17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee and to thy seed after thee.Gen 17:8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land of thy sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. Gen 17:9 And God said unto Abraham, And as for thee, thou shalt keep my covenant, thou, and thy seed after thee throughout their generations. Gen 17:10 This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee: every male among you shall be circumcised. Gen 17:11 And ye shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of a covenant betwixt me and you. Gen 17:12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male throughout your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner that is not of thy seed. Gen 17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Gen 17:14 And the uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

    So the scripts clearly tell that the sign of this covenant is circumcission, this covenant is everlasting and that the one who don’t circumcise breaks God’s covenant, which Muslims already do while according to Christians , Paul cancelled circumcission.

    Other might say that the covenant is with Isaac only as the script says:

    Gen 17:21 But my covenant will I establish with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear unto thee at this set time in the next year.

    Well, this was in the beginning, then it was transferred to Ishmael’s descendents, and that’s what is told in the New Testament when Jesus said to the Jews:

    Mat 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

    Calling Ishmael as a fruitful, and have a great nation is very clear in praising him, otherwise, if God knew that a false prophet came from his descendents where a great nation followed him, why did He describe this nation as great?

    Besides the Bible tells in another part:

    Gen 12:3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse: and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.

    We Muslims bless Abraham everyday in our prayer.

    • I noticed that you left out the most important part of Scripture, given AFTER the time that Jesus (of the Bible) walked on the earth, and I’m sure you did this on purpose because it serves your point. I covered the time period AFTER Jesus (of the Bible) with Paul’s writings that address this. Muslims are NOT part of the promise of covenant and no one, even in Paul’s time, wants the hateful persecution the false god of Islam puts on Christians and Jews (by the way, Jesus is a Jew, and He is neither an ape nor a pig). Have a look, again, at what Paul says:

      “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.” – Galatians 4:28-31

      So Christians are not children of the bondwoman and do not serve the false god of Islam. Likewise, children of Islam are not heirs with God of the Bible. They know Him not, they serve Him not, they love Him not. This site exists to show proof, through your own books, that the two gods CANNOT be the same. I welcome you to worship the True God of the Bible and to foresake your false political system, but if you choose not to, I will NOT try to hurt you nor order that you be hurt. There is a HUGE difference between us and it is really simple: We serve God; Muslims do not.

      Have a good day…thanks for your comments, even if misinformed.

  5. Pingback: descendants of Esau are not included in the inheritance - Jesus is NOT in the Quran!

Leave a Reply